BW consults you about boat licence fees

British Waterways have broken the bad news: they plan to raise the cost of keeping a boat on the canals and rivers substantially over the next three years, starting next April. 

The figures are buried in a new seventeen-page 'consultation document', Boat Licence Fees - Public Consultation.

I think BW are asking for a real-terms rise in licence charges (over three years, 2008-10) of about 30%.  (They actually want about 37%, but they hope the 7% balance will come from a growing total number of boaters).  As a guide, the licence for Granny Buttons cost about £640 this year.  That means it'll rise to around £850 by 2011.

The one graph that stands out for me is this one - it shows how much boat licences are expected to contribute compared to the total amount spent on the waterways (i.e. boaters pay about 1/6th of what the waterways cost):

Of course, boaters pay another share, as part of the general taxation, but I suspect that's a very small part of the extra amount.

This Public Consultation seems to be about how the fee increase is apportioned, rather than by how much money they should raise from boat licences.  For example: should the 'prompt payment discount' be reduced if the number of licence evaders goes down?   Should hire boats and shared ownerships boats pay more or less?  Should trading licences be raised?

The only fixed figure I can find in the document is that the Gold Licence (which covers both BW and EA waterways) is rising by exactly 12% next year.  That 12% is set in stone.

Do I understand all this correctly?  (I'm not saying "Are BW doing the right thing?",  I'm asking "Have I summed up the the document right?")

Talking of the Environment Agency and the Gold Licence, I read a lot of criticism about BW's attitude to boaters, but almost nothing about the EA's management of navigations.  Is the EA doing it more competently, or simply lucky in being able to bury its navigation responsibilities within environmental and flood control?

Personally, I don't see why BW can't simply put the extra cost of boating on their credit card like the rest of us.

Comments

[Allan (nb Albert)]

Re:- "Should hire boats and shared ownerships boats pay more or less?" Ninety percent of the 300 or so shared ownership boats pay the private licence fee - they are private boats. I can't see BW bothering too much about the 30 boats that pay the business licence charge.

[Simon Robbins]

Re EA consultation - I think the reason you see less contention over EA proposals is because EA consults far more competently and thoughtfully than BW - My recent experince as a NABO rep is that EA's officers and consultative structures work far better than BW's. As a result EA in general seems to do much more listening, discussion and preparation BEFORE taking unpopular decisions. Hence the worst problems and most contentious issues have at least been worked through a bit before the public announcements. I find senior EA Officers I have met much more amenable and frankly much more honest and open about such issues than BW.

[Raymond Harvey]

Old subject - but they could start recovering the 7% by extracting some shekels from the owners of the six unlicenced boats moored between Furness Vale and Bugsworth Basin on the Peak Forest Canal....and on the Macclesfield..(Oh never mind!)