EA Visiting Marinas

"In all fairness the EA must look again at their stand on this matter and accept that they do not have the power they claim over private adjacent waters including marinas in these private waters."


In all fairness why not just pay up for the priviledge of being lucky enough to have a boat on the Thames along with the other 8000 odd users,who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford to use the law to try and avoid paying a few hundred pounds per year ?
 
TrueBlue said:
I wonder why there's a fuss - if you leave your car untaxed on the road, you'll be prosecuted. Is that a difference from leaving your boat on Thames water?
Click to expand...

I don't think the fuss is about whether or not you should pay for leaving your boat on the Thames. (And taking your car analogy - if you keep your car on your drive and have no intention of driving it on the road, you can SORN it.) As I said earlier you may or may not agree with the Secretary of States decision.

But

The fuss is about the EA, having been told by the Secretary of State that the adjacent waters legislation was denied, and why, they have nevertheless ignored the ruling and implemented it!!!

I think the Secretary of State was very clear in the Government's intent (see my earlier posting).

"the law should not be changed to criminalise a boat owner who keeps a boat on a marina mooring, private mooring or private water body such as a pond or lake but chooses not to navigate the River Thames"

If the EA really want to require boats in adjacent waters to be registered, they should seek an amendment to the 2010 order from the new Government.
 
oldgit said:
"In all fairness the EA must look again at their stand on this matter and accept that they do not have the power they claim over private adjacent waters including marinas in these private waters."


In all fairness why not just pay up for the priviledge of being lucky enough to have a boat on the Thames along with the other 8000 odd users,who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford to use the law to try and avoid paying a few hundred pounds per year ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely;
The Public Purse pays for the bulk of the River's costs, boaters make a contribution of about half of the lockie staff costs. EA is restricted from looking further afield for further revenue streams, thus it seems more than equable that folks deriving direct benefit from the River should make a contribution. The majority do and as OG and others have said repeatedly that they are happy so to do.

It would appear that there's a minority who would prefer not to pay (anything) and they reappear from time to time. I'm sorry I replied in the first case - I missed out a couple of pages on this thread which indicated a probable troll.
 
mikemanor said:
We may, or may not, agree with what the Secretary of State decided - but that is not the issue here. The issue is that the EA should not be allowed to get away with it.
Click to expand...


I was slow in composing my reply so sorry for crossed post.

This is one of my concerns too. If they can get away with this where will it end?

Lets charge for a mooring at the bottom of a riparian owners garden?

Perhaps that poor wording in the inland waterways order 'must be registered whether afloat or not' could be construed to mean must be registered even if it is chocked up ashore ie not afloat??

Perhaps the EA could charge for transit through the locks on top of the registration charge???

I would expect the EA to have to get a change in the existing law to implement any of the above but why bother with all that let us just tell them we already have the powers needed?

Like you I gave up a lot of my time taking part in the formal objection process,What a waste of time if the EA can just ignore the ruling.
 
'Lets charge for a mooring at the bottom of a riparian owners garden?'

Old chestnut this one. I pay an EA Licence for the small boat at the bottom of my garden because it is on their water. The land is mine. Due to depth issues I also have another boat in a marina. I pay the EA again as the boat is on their water and the Marina because it's their land.
 
oldgit said:
"In all fairness the EA must look again at their stand on this matter and accept that they do not have the power they claim over private adjacent waters including marinas in these private waters."


In all fairness why not just pay up for the priviledge of being lucky enough to have a boat on the Thames along with the other 8000 odd users,who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford to use the law to try and avoid paying a few hundred pounds per year ?
Click to expand...

I am sure you would be happy to pay £570 registration even if your boat remained unused in a off Thames private marina. I am happy to pay my £500 odd pounds a year but I am using it!
I would certainly appreciate your generous donation because it might just keep my charges down.
 
"Lets charge for a mooring at the bottom of a riparian owners garden?

What a good idea...thanks for suggesting it,will all help towards keeping things running......about £50.00 a year ?
Got to be a least a couple of thousand riverside properties,however can we agree to exempt all those riperian owners in receipt of social security or any on minimum wage.:)




"Perhaps the EA could charge for transit through the locks on top of the registration charge..."


Old news,this was the case previously until the system was changed probably for reasons of economics and time lost collecting money at locks to say nothing of mugged lockies!
CIRCA1965.jpg
 
Last edited:
dash300 said:
'Lets charge for a mooring at the bottom of a riparian owners garden?'

Old chestnut this one. I pay an EA Licence for the small boat at the bottom of my garden because it is on their water. The land is mine. Due to depth issues I also have another boat in a marina. I pay the EA again as the boat is on their water and the Marina because it's their land.
Click to expand...

I was trying to say what is to stop the EA charging you for mooring your boat at the bottom of your garden in addition to your license/registration fee. Nothing except the law if they ignore the law they could increase their revenue. I am sure all are agreed except of course the riparian land owners.
 
TrueBlue said:
Perhaps it was the lack of strength of the "denial" of the SofS that gave some encouragement to proceed with their "fiendish plan". She could have insisted that the section was removed in the final Order, but she did not.
Click to expand...

She did insist that it was removed and it was!

TrueBlue said:
Also there were only some 19 objectors to the Order giving EA encouragement (?) that there would be no public outcry.
Click to expand...

If you tell people that the order is to apply registration to boats that were not using the waterway there would have been more objectors but this important information was not part of the London Gazette announcement of the proposals so few people applied for the full text of the proposal.





TrueBlue said:
As there is a general Right of Navigation on the Thames, the only way to charge boaters (the TC used to charge a lock toll) is to levy a registration fee for having a vessel placed on their water.
That being so "not using the facilities" is irrelevant - it's on the water, you must pay
Click to expand...

There is no public right of navigation on private cuts or the waters beyond. Therefore the marina is not the Thames and no registration is required unless the boat uses the Thames.

We are going over old ground here, I am happy to replay the arguments that were covered in the earlier threads that I posted links to but it may be tedious for people that have read them and I do not want to be accused of Banging on like an earlier poster.

I Think we can agree that a take over by CART should be resisted if at all possible in spite of my reservations about the way the EA have handled this issue.
 
TT_WO said:
She did insist that it was removed and it was!
.
Click to expand...

The original 2004 draft included this definition in Part 1 para 2:

2. In this Order—
“adjacent waters” means any lake, pit, pond, marina or other substantially enclosed water adjacent to any of the waterways to which this Order applies and from which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock or similar work) into the waterway;

This definition does not appear in the final version. No mention is made of adjacent waters, marinas, ponds etc in the final version.
 
TT_WO said:
I am sure you would be happy to pay £570 registration even if your boat remained unused in a off Thames private marina. I am happy to pay my £500 odd pounds a year but I am using it!
I would certainly appreciate your generous donation because it might just keep my charges down.
Click to expand...



If you do not want to contribute to the cost of managing the Thames and do not wish to join the 8000 others who do so,remove the boat from the water.There are many marinas and boat yards prepared to store a boat ashore for a very reasonable rate,however what exactly is the point of having a boat without intending to use it at some point in the future.
As for my contributing to the Thames upkeep,regretably unable to afford to keep my boat on that wonderful navigation so naturally do not try moor to my boat there or be brazen enough to ask others perhaps less well off than me to pay for my boating.
 
oldgit said:
If you do not want to contribute to the cost of managing the Thames and do not wish to join the 8000 others who do so,remove the boat from the water.There are many marinas and boat yards prepared to store a boat ashore for a very reasonable rate,however what exactly is the point of having a boat without intending to use it at some point in the future.
As for my contributing to the Thames upkeep,regretably unable to afford to keep my boat on that wonderful navigation so naturally do not try moor to my boat there or be brazen enough to ask others perhaps less well off than me to pay for my boating.
Click to expand...

Well said Fred.

Perhaps the MDL will dig a little separate duck pond at one end of the car park for him to keep his boat in and play at having a boat.
 
oldgit said:
If you do not want to contribute to the cost of managing the Thames and do not wish to join the 8000 others who do so
Click to expand...

As I said, I do, I use a registered boat on the Thames. My contribution is £500+a year.

Many do not use their boat, for good reasons, but they pay to keep the boat in a private adjacent water marina, or on private adjacent water mooring, whilst there they use none of the facilities that the registration charge pays for or at least contributes to. Remember we all pay for water regulation through central taxation.

oldgit said:
,remove the boat from the water.
Click to expand...

Why should they? surely it is their choice as you say, they maybe pay more for a mooring afloat than ashore,their choice.

If you keep a wooden boat in a marina, perhaps during restoration, sometimes taking years, it must be kept afloat, extended period ashore
have been the demise of many classic boats.



oldgit said:
what exactly is the point of having a boat without intending to use it at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

Boats being restored.
Boats out of commission.
Boats being used as accommodation.
Boats unused because of illness.
Boats unused because of working away from home.
etc.


oldgit said:
As for my contributing to the Thames upkeep,regretably unable to afford to keep my boat on that wonderful navigation so naturally do not try moor to my boat there or be brazen enough to ask others perhaps less well off than me to pay for my boating.
Click to expand...

I was trying to point out that if you were required to pay £570 for your boat while it remained unused in a private adjacent water mariner, perhaps whilst working out of the Country/recovering from an illness etc you would not in reality be quite as keen to act as a benefactor to the rest of the boating community who are actually able to use the navigation.

Had the law changed as a result of the Inland Waterway order 2010 in respect of unused boats kept in adjacent waters marinas then these people would have had no choice other than to pay as they have had to if they keep their unused boat on the Thames, but the IWO did not change definition of the Thames or the status of an adjacent water marina and these regulation were not to be applied on adjacent waters, I would like to think, because of objections that were considered as valid.
 
Long posts itemising points sentence for sentence merely ends up a reflection of the "How many angels can stand on a pinhead" debate.
Just man up,join the rest of us long suffering tax payers unhappily funding our pleasures or come back on here at some future point announcing the crushing defeat of the Fourth Reich ( AKA the EA) in the House of Lords and astound us all.
Most certainly will be moving up your way if you win....Free stuff and all that :)
 
oldgit said:
Long posts itemising points sentence for sentence merely ends up a reflection of the "How many angels can stand on a pinhead" debate.
Just man up,join the rest of us long suffering tax payers unhappily funding our pleasures or come back on here at some future point announcing the crushing defeat of the Fourth Reich ( AKA the EA) in the House of Lords and astound us all.
Most certainly will be moving up your way if you win....Free stuff and all that :)
Click to expand...

Come on up any time, the revenue from visiting boats using the Thames is needed.

People must read the forgoing and form their own judgements, meanwhile if marina owners/managers who presumably are inviting EA enforcement officers onto their property or even EA managers would
like to join the conversation I am sure the contribution would be valuable (I know you can't join in on this one Howard)

Spotted the following on another thread on this forum perhaps the EA would confirm the figures.

robinborton robinborton is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Marlow
Posts: 50
Default Thames Funding
I believe it costs roughly £20 million annually to run the Thames The weirs cost £10 million which is funded by Flood Defences and £4 million comes from licenses and the £6 million defecit is funded by the government ....feel free to correct my numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

E
Nimbus 305 or Marex 330
Replies
19
Views
804
Time Out
T

Share this page

Top