It's absolutely disgraceful that CRT line the pockets of upper management... charity in deed. Shame on you !
L
Lez Middleton
8 years ago
Why?? It’s just notfair
T
Toni Girdler
8 years ago
Featured
C&RT and BWML, wholly owned by C&RT currently, are unfairly extorting unfair licence and mooring fees from widebeams many of which are on residential moorings and have been family homes for over 30 years. Targeting only widebeams is discrimination.
M
Matt Biss
8 years ago
I guess that many of those who have campaigned for this additional charge had in mind “fat narrow boats” that they feel are clogging up their waterways, however this is not an effective way of dealing with that "problem" and will have a detrimental effect on many other craft such as those just over the magic 7 foot and the historic vessels that are kept going and preserved for the next generation at their owner’s expense. It is interest in a type of vessel that drives these owners not monetary value. Width of vessel is not an indicator of ability to pay and certainly not an indicator of the desire to subsidise others who have access to more of the system. What a mess.
J
John Fetcho
8 years ago
If a charge is going to made for a boat based on its size, it should not simply be made on either length or width alone. If a charge is to be made on size, it should be based on total area (width x length). That would be fair for everyone. In addition, the people who use the canal the most (continuous cruisers, i.e., "countinuos moorers"), should pay a higher fee than boat owners who are moored in marinas, etc. Continous cruisers are on the canals and rivers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
B
B Ward
8 years ago
How can this be justified when narrow boats can be up to 72 ft long? Disgusting !!
S
Simon Crowe
8 years ago
Unfair to penalise us when we pay a fair amount already...
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
I spent years helping dig out locks, clearing wrecks, repairing gates and sluices when the IWA wanted nothing to do with them, when the CRT wasn't even thought of, I did it because I believed the canals were a resource to be shared by all. If you use a narrow boat, you have less space but greater cruising range. A wide beam gains more space but loses access, why should a wide beam be charged more, for less? Disgusted, I sail at sea so the changes don't effect me.
G
Grant White
8 years ago
To charge more for wide beams when they have less access to the system is outrageous. If anything they should pay less
M
Mark hallam
8 years ago
Totally agree . Emailed crt saying exactly the same with no reply
D
dave stiff
8 years ago
Totally unfair,we can't go to half the places narrow boats can.we hardly go out of our marina.so why should we have to pay more than people who travel further or use the water ways alot more.
L
Lawrence Turner
8 years ago
The incresae of Widebeams on the canals is worrying. But, like those who have to drive petrol guzzlers in our small country and pay for it (not nearly enough), so must those who buy widebeams.
M
Mike Ford
8 years ago
Yep smells of a ill founded action, probably by those of an ill founded disposition ?
L
Laura
8 years ago
Unfair and wrong
K
Karen Swinden
8 years ago
Why should widebeams pay more when they have less access to the canal network? And why were narrow craft owners consulted when they are not affected? This suggests discrimination.
J
Jean Sjostrand
8 years ago
Saved for years to join the canal life know the restrictions of wide beam sail. Still wanted it, now shot in the foot, not fair
R
Rachel Dodman
8 years ago
Surely it would be fairer to charge o length and width? Seems unfair that a long narrowboat pays less than a short widebeam, especially because widebeam boats can't use as much of the river as narrowbeams can!
G
Greg Haines
8 years ago
Shame on c a r t for the price increase
T
Tim Goodacre
8 years ago
Criminal increase. Bet this is not going to include all the 12' wide cruisers owned by the wealthy. People who try to live a cheeper life as they cant afford a house are being penalised. How can anyone sanction such a huge increase when wage increase are so low? This is wrong on so many levels.
No increase keep prices based on length not width
It's absolutely disgraceful that CRT line the pockets of upper management... charity in deed. Shame on you !
Why?? It’s just notfair
C&RT and BWML, wholly owned by C&RT currently, are unfairly extorting unfair licence and mooring fees from widebeams many of which are on residential moorings and have been family homes for over 30 years. Targeting only widebeams is discrimination.
I guess that many of those who have campaigned for this additional charge had in mind “fat narrow boats” that they feel are clogging up their waterways, however this is not an effective way of dealing with that "problem" and will have a detrimental effect on many other craft such as those just over the magic 7 foot and the historic vessels that are kept going and preserved for the next generation at their owner’s expense. It is interest in a type of vessel that drives these owners not monetary value. Width of vessel is not an indicator of ability to pay and certainly not an indicator of the desire to subsidise others who have access to more of the system. What a mess.
If a charge is going to made for a boat based on its size, it should not simply be made on either length or width alone. If a charge is to be made on size, it should be based on total area (width x length). That would be fair for everyone. In addition, the people who use the canal the most (continuous cruisers, i.e., "countinuos moorers"), should pay a higher fee than boat owners who are moored in marinas, etc. Continous cruisers are on the canals and rivers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How can this be justified when narrow boats can be up to 72 ft long? Disgusting !!
Unfair to penalise us when we pay a fair amount already...
I spent years helping dig out locks, clearing wrecks, repairing gates and sluices when the IWA wanted nothing to do with them, when the CRT wasn't even thought of, I did it because I believed the canals were a resource to be shared by all. If you use a narrow boat, you have less space but greater cruising range. A wide beam gains more space but loses access, why should a wide beam be charged more, for less? Disgusted, I sail at sea so the changes don't effect me.
To charge more for wide beams when they have less access to the system is outrageous. If anything they should pay less
Totally agree . Emailed crt saying exactly the same with no reply
Totally unfair,we can't go to half the places narrow boats can.we hardly go out of our marina.so why should we have to pay more than people who travel further or use the water ways alot more.
The incresae of Widebeams on the canals is worrying. But, like those who have to drive petrol guzzlers in our small country and pay for it (not nearly enough), so must those who buy widebeams.
Yep smells of a ill founded action, probably by those of an ill founded disposition ?
Unfair and wrong
Why should widebeams pay more when they have less access to the canal network? And why were narrow craft owners consulted when they are not affected? This suggests discrimination.
Saved for years to join the canal life know the restrictions of wide beam sail. Still wanted it, now shot in the foot, not fair
Surely it would be fairer to charge o length and width? Seems unfair that a long narrowboat pays less than a short widebeam, especially because widebeam boats can't use as much of the river as narrowbeams can!
Shame on c a r t for the price increase
Criminal increase. Bet this is not going to include all the 12' wide cruisers owned by the wealthy. People who try to live a cheeper life as they cant afford a house are being penalised. How can anyone sanction such a huge increase when wage increase are so low? This is wrong on so many levels.