My Photo

Contact me:

  • Email
  • Phone
    07788 973733

About me:

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

August 2012

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Steamboat Emily Anne has a blog | Main | Stone to Sandon »

Saturday, 19 April 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bob Hetherington.

May i put in my four pence worth instead of hounding the true boater why dont B.W.B make use of us and have a web site where we can report the unlicenced boats and any problems on the waterways .This would mean that bw were getting some thing back instead of priceing me and i feel others off the canal.

Mort Bones

naughty naughty.

Neil Corbett

I'm not sure it is useful to link licence charges for CCs to the problem of overstaying moorers. They are, or should be, separate issues.

There is no doubt that boats that are continuously out on the canal already get more for their money. A free mooring every night and often a much greater use of lock water. I think the idea of a reduced levy on marinas has some merit, but if licence fees go up a lot more, many CCers won't be able to pay, especially when diesel goes up.

As to overstaying moorers, this is just a matter of BW being more proactive with moving people on, and having more powers to make them do so. I have met many a mooring warden that has "problem" moorers and they seem powerless to shift them. BW needs to further step up their campaign against unlicenced boats problem and to apply the same vigour to overstayers.


Leaving aside for the moment the issue of "constant moorers".

I would have thought the main issue would be the selection of the accepted principle for boat licenses. There appear to be at least three options

1. Everyone pays the same access based on the dimensions of the boat (same principle as a car licence).
2. User pays. The more you cruise the greater the annual licence fee.
3. Ability of the user to pay. Based on income or the more expensive the boat the higher the licence fee.

I recall in one BW consultant reports the latter principle was rejected because the majority of CC's were identified as likely to be retired and on a low fixed income.

However the first issue to agree upon is whether this is a financial arguement or one relating to lack of access to visitor moorings.

I suspect that the number of genuine CC's is so small that both of the above points are irrelevant.

Andrew Denny

I'm not saying that CCers should be charged more. I'm saying there's a case to be heard for charging them more.

As I understand it, BW charge marinas a hefty amount for connection charges to the canal, and this has to be added on to marina mooring charges.

Perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about what CCers pay to BW, but about what everyone pays.


I agree with you that there is a case to charge CCer's more. I also agree that CCer's support canal side businesses throughout the year.
I am not aware of any specific benefit that has come from the CCer's claim that they are the eyes and ears of the cut.
I wonder how feasible it would be to remove CCer status and insist that every boat has a home mooring?


Why does everyone that discusses licence fees have to make it so complicated (and expensive) to manage.

The system, at the moment, one fee for the use of the waterways, all be it varied by length of boat, works well.

I feel sorry (tongue in cheek)for those poor soles that cannot make use of the canals as much as I plan to as a true CCer.

I dislike comparisons with the car 'licence' but it works in the same way, one fee (varied by pollution emitted) for the use of the roads, it is 'your' choice how much you use the roads.

It is not CCers that hog the visitor moorings it is those that flout the rules, perhaps if BW had the money/manpower they could be more active in controlling these abusers.


I'm not sure you have made the case for charging continuous cruisers more.

For a start, you say yourself that the main problem is not CCers but continuous moorers. And everyone has the right to use the canals as much as they like; it seems unfair to penalise CCers just because some people prefer to leave their boat tied up in a marina most of the time (or are jealous that they don't have the time to continually cruise themselves). I think people under-estimate what CCers add to waterways life: they're pairs of eyes and ears on the ground, they support canalside businesses (even in the depths of winter), they could be regarded as the lifeblood of the system.

What's more, the CCers whose blogs I read tend to steer clear of the "honeypot" mooring sites, and in any case seldom stay longer than a couple of days anywhere. Some might say that a bigger problem are people who take the boat out for the weekend, then leave it tied up on the towpath for a week or two (!)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

  • Follow me on Twitter

Canal blogs and other feeds