EA Thames Registration

( Some will never be ready for a BSS examination, others may be years away as their owners live away and have only limited opportunities to work on them. So how are these folk going to register their boats? And what happens when they don't)


This is a subject that will cause a major headache down here on the Medway.

From my observations the vast majority of boats on the Thames tend, due to the expense of keeping a boat in the area and previous rules governing boat condition,to be kept in fairly good order and even the most basic is worth a few thousand pounds.
An outsider would remark on the overall good standard of all craft going up and down.

How different from my own dear river where a dodgy gas cylinder with a hull round it well past its sink by date will keep you company in most locks.Sometimes they have their own bits of string and fender.
Many of these boats and their enthusiastic owners will find that bringing up their pride and joy to meet BSC standards will.................
A.Be beyond their budgets
B.Cost far more than the boat is worth.
Probably talking about hundreds ?
We live in interesting times.
 
:confused: How on earth can anybody say the Agency is not good at consulting on what it does?

You can visit their website anytime, ring em up, and visit your local office or lock keeper who will help you. What more do people want a letter to every household in the land? :rolleyes:

On the Houseboat front I'm fairly comfortable in thinking they should be paying full wack, particularly when you consider the time they spend afloat and benefiting from the services, directly or indirectly provided by the EA.

Don't forget the work the Agency does isn't just limited to maintaining locks. Gangs of men clean drains, gullies, respond to pollution incidents, prevent flooding, provide flood defences the list goes on and on!! Every single boat in or on the banks of the Thames is touched by the EA so we should all share the burden - equally!
 
Hear hear!

During my four years on the Thames, I have the following observations:

1/ The EA staff I have dealt with have been helpful and friendly.

2/ £400 for a river licence is good value when you consider the acceptable quantity of free mooring places and lock infrastructure alone.

3/ Houseboats & Liveaboard narrow boats deserve to pay more, as they take up space/ benefit far more than recreational boaters ever will do.

4/ People avoiding the licence fee are usually not the sort of people I would want to share the river with anyway, other than unpowered craft, and those people who use a tiny powered inflatable for two-hour jaunts: I think a 2 metre or less exemption should apply, or at least a £25 annual fee, as nobody is going to use one of those for more than a few hours a year anyway, and you can't really park them either, or they get borrowed...LOL


No issues with the fee.
 
pheran said:
The people I have in mind and to whom I have been passing on information are under the impression that to register a boat with EA, it needs a current BSS certificate
That is the current status.
There was a thread on this forum, some considerable time ago about a chap on another EA river who was prosecuted over a project boat.
He came back some time ago when this BSS issue was raised and made some comments, but there was insufficient detail to explain what actually happened.

Hopefully EA will look at the issue and come up with some compromise.

Even if their attitude to projects change, would it be so unreasonable to expect to float for free?
You can't keep a project car on the road without paying for a licence can you?
It's not an exact parallel, but surely the logic is similar.

I wonder what BW do in practice for projects on their waters (purely for reasons of similarity, you understand).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TrueBlue said:
Hopefully EA will look at the issue and come up with some compromise.
Click to expand...

Indeed, otherwise I'm not sure what those who can't get a BSS certificate and are therefore unable to register their boats are going to be expected to do.

TrueBlue said:
Even if their attitude to projects change, would it be so unreasonable to expect to float for free?
You can't keep a project car on the road without paying for a licence can you?
It's not an exact parallel, but surely the logic is similar.
Click to expand...

No. But you can keep your project car on your drive unlicenced and untested as long as you SORN it which costs nothing. And your drive connects to the road in very much the same way as a marina or private backwater connects to the river. Any boat that is kept on the river itself is a different matter. Its the 'adjacent waters' provision that is the root of the problem and EA's apparent attempt to raise what must be a very small amount of additional revenue by intrusion into private property and 'taxing' the sort of boat I've mentioned.

TrueBlue said:
I wonder what BW do in practice for projects on their waters (purely for reasons of similarity, you understand).
Click to expand...

So do I!
 
pheran said:
No. But you can keep your project car on your drive unlicenced and untested as long as you SORN it which costs nothing. And your drive connects to the road in very much the same way as a marina or private backwater connects to the river.
Click to expand...

You mean the way hardstanding is connected to the river by a slipway?

Project boats will need to go on the dry.

They have to pay the marina for storage, why can they not pay the EA for water to float in?
 
pheran said:
Indeed, otherwise I'm not sure what those who can't get a BSS certificate and are therefore unable to register their boats are going to be expected to do.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately "Authority" is blinkered rules is rules is the general maxim - and not restricted to EA either. Perhaps somebody out there cares...
No. But you can keep your project car on your drive unlicensed and untested as long as you SORN it which costs nothing. And your drive connects to the road in very much the same way as a marina or private backwater connects to the river. Any boat that is kept on the river itself is a different matter. Its the 'adjacent waters' provision that is the root of the problem and EA's apparent attempt to raise what must be a very small amount of additional revenue by intrusion into private property and 'taxing' the sort of boat I've mentioned.
Click to expand...

Drat, you've broken my analogy (that's the trouble with that sort or argument, they're never parallel)

Since the "adjacent waters" tag has been removed, EA is presumably falling back on the "locks, cuts and works" definition in the 1932 act. Marinas , with my Clapham Omnibus hat on, would fall within the last two words, at least all the large ones do, even if using an existing lake, you'd have to cut a channel to get access (cut) and dig a hole to get navigation depth (works).

I was surprised that the '32 Act didn't mention the tributaries of the River, probably because many of them are unnavigable and, in any event income was received by tolls collected at locks, so it didn't matter where the vessel was lurking (big assumption here).

We can argue and discuss here until the cows come home, nothing is certain until EA takes action and then only if the boat owner decides to challenge them.
 
TrueBlue said:
We can argue and discuss here until the cows come home, nothing is certain until EA takes action and then only if the boat owner decides to challenge them.
Click to expand...

True. I can only hope that who ever takes these sort of decisions at EA is blessed with common sense and a sense of fairness.


(with something approaching 2500 views, this has obviously been a subject of interest to a great many people)
 
CJL said:
:confused: How on earth can anybody say the Agency is not good at consulting on what it does?
Click to expand...

The EA not only consults but has a considerable number of meetings with stakeholders and user groups. The Waterways Working Group includes representatives from the ATYC, the Dutch Barge Association, the IWA, River Thames Society, Passenger Boat Association, British Marine Federation, the RUGs, National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) and canoe and rowing organisations and possibly others I cant think of !
 
boatone said:
The EA not only consults but has a considerable number of meetings with stakeholders and user groups. The Waterways Working Group includes representatives from the ATYC, the Dutch Barge Association, the IWA, River Thames Society, Passenger Boat Association, British Marine Federation, the RUGs, National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) and canoe and rowing organisations and possibly others I cant think of !
Click to expand...

..... but can you produce minutes from any of these meetings where the EA has specifically advised that it will be ignoring the Secretary of State's decision and arbitrarily applying the 'adjacent waters' licensing powers which he so clearly rejected and had removed from the 2010 Order?
 
TrueBlue said:
Since the "adjacent waters" tag has been removed, EA is presumably falling back on the "locks, cuts and works" definition in the 1932 act. Marinas , with my Clapham Omnibus hat on, would fall within the last two words, at least all the large ones do, even if using an existing lake, you'd have to cut a channel to get access (cut) and dig a hole to get navigation depth (works).
Click to expand...
Sorry if you think I was shouting. I think the discussion here is important and an exchange of opinions valuable. To that end may I make a few comments about Lock cuts and works as follows:

• The registration form has the Thames definition on it, but it was not thought necessary to include the Lock, cuts and works part of the definition.

• The full wording of TCA 1932 section 4 reads Locks cuts and works within the said portions of rivers. There was no anticipation of future ‘cuts or works extending the definition of the river.

• There is no public right of navigation through the artificial cuts.

• Many of the cuts were not excavated until many years after the 1932 TCA section 4 definition of the Thames.

Finally, on the banks of the Thames piles, pontoons, etc. on or through the water, adjacent to private land are chargeable to the owner of that land. The EA make no charge for piles and pontoons etc in the water that are beyond the artificial cut in private marinas, indicating to me at least that they are not considered part of the Thames for charging purposes.

It should be noted however that marinas that have their moorings on the banks of the Thames are charged for Piles and posts etc.
 
Which council tax band to houseboats fall into (D) ? and one assumes that if not permanently moored you are able to avoid this.Is there an element of CT in the marina fee.
 
Last edited:
Lotus_John said:
Finally, on the banks of the Thames piles, pontoons, etc. on or through the water, adjacent to private land are chargeable to the owner of that land. The EA make no charge for piles and pontoons etc in the water that are beyond the artificial cut in private marinas, indicating to me at least that they are not considered part of the Thames for charging purposes.

It should be noted however that marinas that have their moorings on the banks of the Thames are charged for Piles and posts etc.
Click to expand...

Who regulates the riparian owners?
Who comments on the planning proposals along the river bank and in marinas?
Who checks to make sure the developments don't proposals are in accordance with the plans?
Who checks to make sure the works are done so that they don't cause pollution?

So even in the situations you describe the EA is heavily involved in them and you should expect to pay towards this work.

Chris
 
oldgit said:
Which council tax band to houseboats fall into (D) ? and one assumes that if not permanently moored you are able to avoid this.Is there an element of CT in the marina fee.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that the EA has no interest whatsoever in council tax or residential moorings as such which are strictly a local authority affair. The EA simply have a registration class for what is loosely described as 'houseboats'.

As far as marinas are concerned, those I have stayed in seem to have a clause in the agreements which specifies that you are not allowed to use the boat as 'a permanent residence' and I don't believe there is any council tax element in berthing fees.
 
Lotus_John said:
Finally, on the banks of the Thames piles, pontoons, etc. on or through the water, adjacent to private land are chargeable to the owner of that land. The EA make no charge for piles and pontoons etc in the water that are beyond the artificial cut in private marinas, indicating to me at least that they are not considered part of the Thames for charging purposes.

It should be noted however that marinas that have their moorings on the banks of the Thames are charged for Piles and posts etc.
Click to expand...

Lets just assume that your analysis is correct and that the marinas should be paying accommodation charges for all the pontoons and other structures in the marinas. Who do you think would ultimately have to cough up? The marinas would simply increase berthing fees to cover the extra costs.

Almost any attempt to derive more income from existing income streams is likely to have this same effect of increasing costs for river users themselves.
Mind you, that would be completely in line with the governments mantra that those who use (or 'enjoy') facilities should wherever possible actually pay for them. Any attempt to reduce the current income stream can only result in a commensurate increase elsewhere or a reduction in services.

How would a 100% increase in registration fees suit you? Even that would not completely replace the current level of grant aid support.

Oh, and somebody here mentioned VAT. BW charge VAT whereas the EA charges are not vatable. What do you think might happen if the new 'charity' combines EA waters with BW?
 
boatone said:
Lets just assume that your analysis is correct and that the marinas should be paying accommodation charges for all the pontoons and other structures in the marinas. Who do you think would ultimately have to cough up? The marinas would simply increase berthing fees to cover the extra costs.
Click to expand...


My analysis is that the EA cannot charge and have never charged for the piles and pontoons etc in the private marinas because they are not and never have been part of the Thames, and it follows that they are not entitled to charge for registration of an unused boat in a private marina because it is not legally part of the Thames.

Had the EA got the Adjacent Water legislation passed, surely it was only a matter of time before they would claim that the Piles and pontoons would have to be paid for. If they have given undertakings to BMF and the marina trade that they are only interested in control for registration purposes, how good would those promises be if the EA function were passed to a new BW/Charity trust?

Just to go back on an earlier point by DJM, neither the BMF nor ATYC were aware that that the Inland waters order did not include the adjacent waters legislation until well after the new regulations appeared on the EA website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top