Why were narrowboat owners part of a consultation that does not affect them? As wide-beam boaters we were the minority of voters on an issue that affects wide beam owners. Narrow boat owners should have been voting on this matter!
J
john richard walker
8 years ago
Absolutely ridiculous, why on earth is the width a problem and not the length? No disrespect to narrow boaters but they do take up moorings with the length. I have sailed the rivers, Aire, Trent and Calder for over 15 yrs and never have I had a problem with width. I agree with the sentiment that it should be on Sq footage.
M
Matthew Stevens
8 years ago
Featured
I find this unfair, as a wide beam cruiser based on the river Trent I have access to only around 5% of the waterways due to height but will be expected to pay more whilst narrowboats with access to 100% of the network will not.
J
John Stevens
8 years ago
Perhaps an adjustment to make the fee proportional to the available length of waterway for the boat width?
T
Tom Skelton
8 years ago
We were told at the start the review would be revenue neutral, however the end result was not revenue neutral. Widebeams paying 10-20% more and narrowbeams paying the same. How about being honest about what you are doing CRT?
N
Neil Gosling
8 years ago
This increase does not reflect the amount of the river and canal network accessible by wider beam craft. This should be a reduction if anything! How come there is no increase for narrow boats which are using the entire network.
If this increase goes ahead I pressume locks will be widened, canals dregged etc?? Of course not! so please try and justify or scrap the idea.
C
Cherryll Young
8 years ago
Not fair, not right & putting our heritage at risk. Do you care about the future??
L
Lee Parkinson
8 years ago
I think it is totally unfair that people can be targeted so easily because we have nowhere else to go
J
Jonny Chappell
8 years ago
Disgraceful.
A
Alan Gardiner
8 years ago
Lets make things fair for everyone!
S
Steve Rupik
8 years ago
Just another way to tax people in an unfair way.
We all use the water so it should be proportionate to all water users.
M
Miss Anonymous
8 years ago
Your knee jerk petition is flawed in various ways. What would be most fair is a licence fee based on square footage, thereby creating a fairer system when long narrowboats are included. Also saying narrowboat owners should not have been consulted as they aren’t affected is like saying no one an have a vote on gay marriage for example unless they are gay. Of course NB owners should be consulted too. You seem to be demonising NB owners when you should realise that London especially is very congested and many WB owners have new luxury boats built especially for CCing in London, which makes congestion worse as they DO take up more room. Your petition is divisive, boat owners of every type would be better working together against CRT
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
65 x 12
Should be able to navigate wider stretches but lack of maintenance restricts or causes excessive damage .
If increase funded connection to navigate to additional wider stretches then would be welcomed but not when we pay existing fee and that money does not give us passage to areas we should be able to travel and make mooring options limited due to overhanging hedges etc
T
Tony Crabbe
8 years ago
Not at all justifiable
S
Sally Woodward
8 years ago
Thames locks and infrastructure were built to accommodate Thames Barges, lighters and working narrowboat pairs passing through locks abreast. It hasn't stopped the EA ripping off wide historic boats for decades. I cannot believe the CRT is planning to do the same. Our Maritime Heritage is fragile enough! Why deter people from trying to keep and restore historic vessels on the waterways that were built for them ? Madness! Especially as wider boats cannot access the whole of the canal system they will be paying for, so their cruising range is restricted, and they will be subsidising those who can go everywhere! Totally unfair, as is the system on the Thames!
C
Chris Green
8 years ago
The petition is correct. The consultation is flawed and therefore invalid.
A
Annette Jobburns
8 years ago
We should all live and let live.
A
Ady myers
8 years ago
Just travelled up from lymm to yorkshire. Trees and bushes all over grown, especially by narrow bridges. Whose going to foot the bill for scratched paintwork.
As for banning widebeams on broad canals or having to pay for to use tunnels these are the canals that are designed for.
B
Brett Hoskins
8 years ago
There is no justification for the discrimination against boats wider than narrowboats on the canal system.
I
Ian Marchant
8 years ago
The consultation process was fundamentally flawed in structure which garunteed a result in favour of a sector which seeks to promote their own cause to the detriment of others. Further restrictions to movement for widebeam vessels, which are already restricted by size, is totally uncalled for while their costs are being disproportionately increased.
Why were narrowboat owners part of a consultation that does not affect them? As wide-beam boaters we were the minority of voters on an issue that affects wide beam owners. Narrow boat owners should have been voting on this matter!
Absolutely ridiculous, why on earth is the width a problem and not the length? No disrespect to narrow boaters but they do take up moorings with the length. I have sailed the rivers, Aire, Trent and Calder for over 15 yrs and never have I had a problem with width. I agree with the sentiment that it should be on Sq footage.
I find this unfair, as a wide beam cruiser based on the river Trent I have access to only around 5% of the waterways due to height but will be expected to pay more whilst narrowboats with access to 100% of the network will not.
Perhaps an adjustment to make the fee proportional to the available length of waterway for the boat width?
We were told at the start the review would be revenue neutral, however the end result was not revenue neutral. Widebeams paying 10-20% more and narrowbeams paying the same. How about being honest about what you are doing CRT?
This increase does not reflect the amount of the river and canal network accessible by wider beam craft. This should be a reduction if anything! How come there is no increase for narrow boats which are using the entire network. If this increase goes ahead I pressume locks will be widened, canals dregged etc?? Of course not! so please try and justify or scrap the idea.
Not fair, not right & putting our heritage at risk. Do you care about the future??
I think it is totally unfair that people can be targeted so easily because we have nowhere else to go
Disgraceful.
Lets make things fair for everyone!
Just another way to tax people in an unfair way. We all use the water so it should be proportionate to all water users.
Your knee jerk petition is flawed in various ways. What would be most fair is a licence fee based on square footage, thereby creating a fairer system when long narrowboats are included. Also saying narrowboat owners should not have been consulted as they aren’t affected is like saying no one an have a vote on gay marriage for example unless they are gay. Of course NB owners should be consulted too. You seem to be demonising NB owners when you should realise that London especially is very congested and many WB owners have new luxury boats built especially for CCing in London, which makes congestion worse as they DO take up more room. Your petition is divisive, boat owners of every type would be better working together against CRT
65 x 12 Should be able to navigate wider stretches but lack of maintenance restricts or causes excessive damage . If increase funded connection to navigate to additional wider stretches then would be welcomed but not when we pay existing fee and that money does not give us passage to areas we should be able to travel and make mooring options limited due to overhanging hedges etc
Not at all justifiable
Thames locks and infrastructure were built to accommodate Thames Barges, lighters and working narrowboat pairs passing through locks abreast. It hasn't stopped the EA ripping off wide historic boats for decades. I cannot believe the CRT is planning to do the same. Our Maritime Heritage is fragile enough! Why deter people from trying to keep and restore historic vessels on the waterways that were built for them ? Madness! Especially as wider boats cannot access the whole of the canal system they will be paying for, so their cruising range is restricted, and they will be subsidising those who can go everywhere! Totally unfair, as is the system on the Thames!
The petition is correct. The consultation is flawed and therefore invalid.
We should all live and let live.
Just travelled up from lymm to yorkshire. Trees and bushes all over grown, especially by narrow bridges. Whose going to foot the bill for scratched paintwork. As for banning widebeams on broad canals or having to pay for to use tunnels these are the canals that are designed for.
There is no justification for the discrimination against boats wider than narrowboats on the canal system.
The consultation process was fundamentally flawed in structure which garunteed a result in favour of a sector which seeks to promote their own cause to the detriment of others. Further restrictions to movement for widebeam vessels, which are already restricted by size, is totally uncalled for while their costs are being disproportionately increased.