f-licensing

AT THE British Waterways Advisory Forum (BWAF) August meeting, it was realised that the current method of boat licensing by British Waterways is unfair, and recommendations were made as to the future policy of boat licensing.

The meeting was attended by representatives from the major waterways organisations in addition to British Waterways.

Many respondents considered certain aspects of the present licensing system to be unfair, and made suggestions for improvement:

It was widely suggested that those without a permanent mooring and wide beam boats, were not contributing their fair share of the money raised from boaters.

BWAF has considered these views very carefully. With the aim of improving fairness, BWAF proposes that:

(a) All boats should be subject to licence fees based on a single table of sizes.

(b) Commercial boats should obtain a new Operator’s Licence, and would in total continue to pay more than private boats.

(d) Wide beam boats should pay a supplement based on beam (two options).

(e) Continuous mooring should be more closely controlled (four options).

(f) Income raised from new charges should be used to moderate increases applied to the basic licence fee.

(g) Encouragement should be given to the creation of many more approved residential moorings.

(h) Discounts for pensioners and those on low incomes would be impractical.

(i) Various measures should be considered to aid enforcement.

Where options are suggested, BWAF has agreed with British Waterways that national boating organisations will be asked to comment, in the hope of reaching a consensus or majority view, which will be taken into account as it decides licence fee levels for 2009/10.

Wide beam boats will be extra

Massive increase in licences

BRITISH Waterways asked for an increase of £5millions for 2010/11 from £13 millions to £18 millions, in response to pressures on its cash flow.

It states that its business plan requires net licence income to rise by £1.3m in 2009/10. Of this, about 0.3m is expected to come from improved enforcement. The remaining £1m, if spread evenly, would require a licence fee increase for private boats of 11.2%.

BWAF considered all the material submitted to British Waterways by individuals and organisations. Some aspects of the existing regime were seen by many respondents as unfair.

In particular, respondents said that wide beam boats should pay more than narrow beam.

Continuous cruisers should pay more than boats with a permanent mooring.

Continuous mooring was seen as a serious problem, both in terms of impairment of cruising, and of unfair avoidance of charges borne by the majority of boats.

British Waterways should increase enforcement of unlicensed boats and of overstaying continuous cruisers

As to the huge increases in licences proposed by British Waterways, it was believed it had not made the case for such large fee increases, and that pensioners and others on fixed or low incomes would not be able to afford such increases.

BWAF recommended the following principles to British Waterways:

(a) The time was not right for adopting a high-tech version of tolls, e.g. by using a vehicle tracking system; nor could the cost be justified.

(b) Hybrid toll-and-licence systems were similarly inappropriate.

(c) The present licence should be regarded as permitting the boat to be on the water and to be used for unlimited travel, irrespective of the type of user.

(d) It was no longer practical to establish high and low use categories of private licence, because this would require measurement of use.

(e) Similarly, the argument that hire boats should pay more on grounds of greater use could no longer be sustained.

It was concluded that in principle all boats should pay licence fees on a standard basis, related to the size of boat rather than the type or extent of use.

The emphasis of this report is on building fairness over the longer term. A number of proposals have been developed, and costed with the help of British Waterways. Some of these proposals are fairly radical, and all would have an adverse impact on some boaters, while in our view benefiting the majority. We therefore present a range of options for debate.

We recognise that British Waterways intends to pursue further significant increases in licence fees for 2009 and beyond. If it were possible to adopt at least some of our recommendations for improved fairness in time for 2009, the majority of boaters would face a lower price increase than if the proposals were not adopted.

The many rivers-only licenced boats on the Soar will pay 40% more for their licence

Boat data

THERE are about 28,500 private, powered boats with long term licences.

The total income from licences in 2008/9 will be about £15m.

There are about 5,500 private wide beam boats, of which 40% are on rivers-only licences.

The average private licence fee (2008) is about £600. About 80% of boats (excluding canoes and dinghies) are between 25ft and 60ft. It is a common view that ‘boats are getting longer’. In fact, however, about half the boats pay more, and half less, than £620. This is only a little more than the average fee, so there is not a preponderance of smaller or larger boats.

A hire licence costs about 2.35 x a private one.

Some 10% of boats are recorded as not having a permanent mooring and not being trailed boats. British Waterways therefore designates these by default as continuous cruisers.

British Waterways Continuous Cruiser Declaration, produced in 2005, is not in current use following objections by some boaters.

British Waterways does not at present routinely verify the home mooring claimed on licence application forms. Where a boat claims a home mooring which it does not have, it is not possible to deduce whether the boat has moved to another mooring site, or has become a continuous cruiser.

Approaching 2000 boats are under enforcement, of which about 500 are thought to be continuous cruisers. .

Charging system

THE present system crudely uses the length of the boat as a proxy for the owner’s ability to pay, or for the number of persons the boat can carry. Recognising the deficiencies of this, other approaches (e.g. insured value) were considered, but none was found preferable.

An alternative view is that all boats cause similar expense to British Waterways, and that therefore all boats should pay an equal fee.

Under the British Waterways Act 1971, boats based on certain rivers pay only 60% of a standard licence fee. The list is eclectic, and boats on other rivers are required to pay the full fee. Those river-registered boats which wish to visit other British Waterways waterways must buy a short-term licence. It should be noted that a disproportionate number of river boats are wide-beam.

Because BWAF does not believe that distance travelled or cruising range should be factors in licence fee setting, we recommended that British Waterways explore the feasibility of removing the rivers-only discount. This could raise up to £600,000 a year, and would require a Transport & Works Order. In our view, such a move would commend itself more to British Waterways if the support of user groups were assured.

Wide beam boats

IF SIZE is to be the main determinant of fee levels, then many contributors argue that beam should be considered as well as length. There are about 5,500 boats over 2.1m beam.

We considered the counter-argument that broader boats have significant restriction of range. We noted that there are other boats whose cruising range is restricted by length, draft or air draft, and that in some areas wide beam boats cannot share locks and hence use more water.

BWAF believes that extra charges would go some way towards redressing what many boaters see as unfairness, and recommends that a wide-beam supplement be introduced, following consultation.

Continuous cruisers

CONTINUOUS cruisers may be divided into two distinct groups.

‘Bona fide’ continuous cruisers (as described in the 1995 Act), who travel around the waterways, are seen by nearly all contributors as adding much to the canal scene, and as providing useful information to British Waterways on the state of the track. Continuous cruisers are largely residential, but include other boats who cannot find, or do not choose to take, a permanent mooring.

Some boats move round the system, with periods of cruising interspersed with periods on a paid-for mooring, but do not register any mooring as a home mooring. These are by default classified as continuous cruisers.

Some continuous cruisers pay for an official winter mooring from British Waterways, which relieves them for a period from the obligation to continue their journey.

Continuous cruisers benefit from extensive use of towpath moorings used only occasionally by boats with a home mooring. They also make significantly greater use of water points, rubbish disposal and other facilities.

Those boats which declare a home mooring do so only for the day on which they make their licence application. This can be verified for that day, but is nonetheless only a snapshot in time. Boats are free to move their home mooring as often as they wish, without reporting to British Waterways. Equally, a boat may legitimately declare a home mooring one day, then start up continuously cruising the next.

Any boat with a home mooring may leave for a cruise, intending to return for the following winter. Such boats must obey the 14 days rule, but are not continuous cruisers.

Continuous moorers

‘CONTINUOUS moorers’, who move within a limited area, rather than making the ‘progressive journey’ required by British Waterways are in contrast considered by contributors to be abusing the system. They are widely regarded as causing pressure on moorings which would otherwise be available for other boats, and are not believed to pay a fair contribution to the upkeep of the waterways.

There is particular concern at pressure on designated visitor moorings, and on moorings which should be available for ‘weekenders’. BWAF is concerned, as is British Waterways, about long lengths of unpermitted linear mooring spoiling the enjoyment of passing boaters. Continuous moorers are not all residential. Like continuous cruisers, they make more extensive use of water points etc. than do boats with a home mooring.

The shortage of moorings, in places where people want to live, has been particularly severe in the South East and on the Kennet & Avon. Some boaters, who wished to have a permanent mooring, have been unable to find one, and may unwillingly have slipped into becoming continuous moorers. Other boaters may deliberately have chosen to become continuous moorers because it is cheap, provides a mooring in the right place for work or family commitments, and has no effective sanction against it.

The overall supply of moorings has significantly increased in the past two years, marking the success of private investment under British Waterways’ marinas initiative, but these are not necessarily in the places, or at the price, continuous moorers want, nor, generally, are they residential.

This is not the complete text of the forum's deliberations but that concerning licensing.

Continuous mooring controlled

Continuous mooring could in principle be controlled by either:

(a) Enforcement—British Waterways now has the GPS technology to log the position of boats over time, making enforcement more feasible than before, but there is no direct financial benefit to British Waterways from such action; so it is given lower priority than licence evasion.

(b) Designating long lengths of new permanent moorings in places where people are already mooring—but this would run counter to British Waterways' commitment, and the wish of most boaters, to reduce towpath mooring. Furthermore, local planning authorities would not approve creation of extended residential moorings along the line of the waterway. For these reasons, this solution is not proposed as an option below, but it should be recognised that of all possible actions this has the potential to generate the most money.

(c) Increasing the supply of permanent offline residential moorings in the affected areas—but this could not be expected to produce significant results even in the medium term. The present plentiful supply of free moorings undermines potential demand for expensive new sites.

(d) Creating a Roving Mooring Permit—this would permit the boat to remain within a defined length of waterway. The boat would still have to move every 14 days, and would not be allowed to occupy visitor moorings. A Roving Mooring Permit would cost less than a basic permanent mooring in that area.

(e) Increasing the cost of continuous cruising (which includes continuous mooring) by a significant sum—so as to provide an incentive for people to seek permanent moorings elsewhere, and to raise income which could partly be used for enforcement of continuous mooring.

Continuous moorers above Derwent Mouth Lock for weeks on end

All paying moorers contribute

BRITISH Waterways' income from boating consists both of licence fees, and of a share of every mooring fee paid by boats with home moorings. Even where British Waterways contributes nothing to the cost of operating a mooring, for example at a private marina, this share is typically at least 9% of the mooring fee. This contribution is made neither by continuous cruisers nor continuous moorers.

BWAF considers it unfair that continuous cruisers and moorers do not make a similar contribution to British Waterways’ costs, and are thereby subsidised by the majority of boaters. BWAF wishes to encourage continuous moorers either to take up permanent moorings or to start moving around the system.

BWAF is concerned to increase fairness. It recognises that the changes it proposes would adversely affect some boaters, but believes them to be in the interest of the great majority. Only decisive action would end the present state of affairs, so unacceptable to the great majority of consultees. Inaction, by contrast, would continue a situation in which those who pay for a mooring are subsidising those who choose not to. Therefore these options are proposed for debate are as follows.

Continuous cruisers/moorers—options

CONTINUOUS cruisers/moorers—option A (Licence supplement)

(a) In the absence of agreement about a workable strategy for differentiating continuous cruisers and continuous moorers, British Waterways must continue to treat both groups in the same way.

(b) All boats without a verified home mooring would be subjected to an additional Facilities Charge as a contribution to British Waterways' higher costs of providing such boats with moorings, water, refuse and other facilities.

(c) This charge would be set at a maximum of £150 per year— about 10% of the value of a good mooring. This would generate about £300k in a full year.

(d) The income generated from this charge should partly be used for tighter enforcement of the 14 day rule. It is anticipated that this would encourage a proportion of continuous moorers to seek a permanent mooring, thus easing the pressure on visitor moorings.

(e) The danger is recognised that some boaters might leave permanent moorings and take up this much cheaper option. Well-publicised enforcement would mitigate this risk.

British Waterways has legal power

BRITISH Waterways is satisfied that it has legal power to make such an additional charge, and will take steps to assure BWAF of this, and to discuss it with national user groups.

Continuous cruisers/moorers—option B (Enforcement only).

(a) Continuous mooring presents a serious challenge, both to British Waterways and to users.

(b) Bona fide continuous cruisers should not be asked to pay anything more than a normal licence.

(d) User groups should establish a programme of regular volunteer patrols which would assist British Waterways' own enforcement staff to maintain adequate records of any boats which failed to make a progressive journey.

(e) BWAF would then look to British Waterways to carry out appropriate enforcement action, with a view to the complete ending of continuous mooring within say two years.

Unlicenced boat shuffling along the Trent & Mersey Canal for many years

Roving Mooring Permits

CONTINUOUS cruisers/moorers—option C (Roving Mooring Permits).

(a) No additional charge should be imposed on bona fide continuous cruisers.

(b) Continuous mooring without payment should be reduced and, eventually, eliminated. It is recognised that continuous mooring results from genuine excess demand for moorings, mainly residential, in certain areas. In the medium term there is no realistic prospect of this demand being met by an increase in supply of offline moorings, with residential consent, in the areas required.

(c) It is not considered feasible or desirable to designate long lengths of permanent towpath mooring. It is recognised, however, that people are mooring where they are for good reasons connected with jobs, family etc. This lifestyle should be legitimised and charged for.

(d) Roving Mooring Permits should therefore be developed, in specifically designated areas with the number of such permits set at a maximum. British Waterways would develop pilot schemes on southern waterways where continuous mooring was causing particular pressure. Tight enforcement would ensure that the total number of moored boats in the pilot areas was reduced to an acceptable level. Roving mooring permits would be priced similarly to nearby end-of-garden moorings. This would be both to generate realistic and useful income for British Waterways, and to positively encourage continuous moorers to take up proper moorings elsewhere.

Status Quo

CONTINUOUS cruisers/moorers—option D (Status Quo).

(a) No additional charge should be imposed on bona fide continuous cruisers.

(b) It is recognised that continuous mooring results from genuine excess demand for moorings, mainly residential, in certain areas.

(c) This demand should, as far as possible, be served by a substantial increase in the number of off-line residential moorings. British Waterways is discussing this matter with RBOA and LGA, with the aim of encouraging Local Planning Authorities more readily to grant planning permission. Government should be encouraged to support this drive by the issue of appropriate Planning Policy Guidance, and by authorising Housing Associations to finance such sites.

(d) British Waterways should work with user groups and marina operators to identify suitable sites—too many opportunities have been missed in the past.

(e) As sites are developed, local continuous moorers should be encouraged to move there. Those who refuse should suffer enforcement action so that they take up continuous cruising, or find permanent moorings elsewhere.

(f) As the supply of moorings comes into better alignment with demand, the position should be stabilised by firm enforcement, so that the present uncontrolled situation does not recur.

It is recommended that British Waterways-designated Winter Moorings be ineligible as home moorings for those boats whose licence falls due for renewal while they are at a Winter Mooring.

The future for unlicenced boats

Enforcement and licence control

WE STRONGLY support the extra work British Waterways is now doing on enforcement.

We recommend that British Waterways should consider the practicality of regularly validating customer declarations of their home mooring.

We recommend that licences more clearly show the type of licence and the type of mooring—continuous cruiser; home mooring in private marina; British Waterways home mooring. This would encourage more effective use of British Waterways' evasion hotline and website.

We recommended that British Waterways impose a fine or charge for non-display of a licence (which had been issued).

Consultees reported cases of newly-built sailaways not being licensed while they were being fitted out. We recommended that builders should report deliveries to British Waterways and/or be enabled or required to licence new boats.

British Waterways is working on a ‘licence it or lose it’ campaign, which will include an internet facility to allow anyone to check whether a given boat is licensed. These initiatives respond to widespread concerns, and we welcome them.

BWAF concludes that wide beam boats, river boats, continuous cruisers and continuous moorers are not making a fair contribution to British Waterways' income, and that consequently 70% of boats, which fall into none of these categories, are subsidising them. BWAF’s recommendations in this report are intended to reduce this unfairness. We believe that increasing charges disproportionately for these groups would be less unfair than imposing a uniform increase on all boats.

We anticipate that the wide beam and continuous cruising charges could potentially generate some £700,000 in a full year, rising to £1,350,000 if river discounts were removed. This income should be used substantially to moderate the general level of increases.

There is a strong view that such increases should be linked to measured improvements in service for which boaters themselves had asked. BWAF would be pleased to work on this in conjunction with the new Standards Advisory Group.

Current boat licensing is unfair discloses British Waterways Advisory Forum