Thames Registration Charges

[boatone]

The EA is responsible for managing navigation on the Thames, the Medway, and Anglian Waters (River Great Ouse System, River Nene, River Stour, River Ancholme, Black Sluice, River Welland and River Glen).

On the Medway and Anglian waters registration fees are calculated based on boat length only unlike the Thames where fees are based on a length x breadth formula in square metres.

Given the scarcity of moorings on the Thames there would appear to be a strong case for charging based on length only as with the other waterways but I suspect attempting such a change will meet with many objections and take a long time to achieve. However, as the current agreement for fees to increase annually by CPI + 2% will expire next year there will likely be an opportunity for the whole issue of licence fees to be reconsidered.

So, what should it be - length only or area ?

 

[Captain Coochie]

If it goes on length only I shall be putting the outboard on the port side

 

[dash300]

I'd go for LOA makes it consistent with other waterways and with marina berthing charges.

 

[Chris_d]

It will like most peeps depend on if its going to cost me more or less

Area does encourage narrower beam craft which is helpful in locks but not for moorings. Everybody lies about their dimensions anyway, just browse Jim Sheads list and note all the discrepencies for identical boats. I personnely wouldn't try to change it, could get really messy and everyone will end up paying more.

 

[oldgit]

If it was based on length "with minor adjustments" the contributions made by both cruisers and narrowboats would be more equitable and perhaps go some way to mute the criticism regards narrowboats taking up vast sections of public moorings and denying others a chance to moor somewhere for the night. ?

 

[dash300]

If it was based on length "with minor adjustments" the contributions made by both cruisers and narrowboats would be more equitable and perhaps go some way to mute the criticism regards narrowboats taking up vast sections of public moorings and denying others a chance to moor somewhere for the night. ?

I support this view and would make the situation more equitable. The next issue to be addressed is the long stay continuous cruisers.
This year I have spoken to two owners of very nice dutch barge replicas, nice people but they have decided to use the Thames as their home.
Just upstream from me is a beautiful Replica DB. It has been moored on a public mooring for at the very 3 weeks. It's a lovely boat, they are not 'pikeys' clearly
but if this expansion continues, those of us who are leisure boaters are in danger of being squeezed out of the diminishing number of available leisure moorings for our
little jaunts out on the Thames. Either there needs to be more control of long stayers or more provision for leisure moorings needs to be addressed.

 

[gordontytler]

I would vote for length only because I assume this would be a reduction for me and an increase for narrow boats. If the EA has the length data for every registered boat you need to divide the total current fee by total length of all boats to get the new cost per meter. Interesting thought, if you did line up all the licensed boats, end to end, how long would that be?

 

[boatone]

I would vote for length only because I assume this would be a reduction for me and an increase for narrow boats. If the EA has the length data for every registered boat you need to divide the total current fee by total length of all boats to get the new cost per meter. Interesting thought, if you did line up all the licensed boats, end to end, how long would that be?

It may surprise you to know that I have already carried out an exercise that enables me to answer your questions fairly accurately. (Sad, yes I know!).

Earlier this year the EA were kind enough to provide me with the basic statistics of the almost 9,000 private powered craft registered on the Thames in 2012. No personal details or names of boats were supplied, just the length and breadth of each boat.

I subsequently did some extensive analysis, the information enabling me to calculate the square metres for each boat and, by multiplying this by the charge per square metre was able to arrive at the individual licence fees. Further calculations then enabled analysis of numbers of boats in various length categories and income contribution.

The total licence fee income was just a little under £3million and the average licence fee £334. Over 70% of the boats - approximately 6,300 - were less than 9 meters (30feet) in length and contributed approx 47% of the income.

To illustrate the issue of charging by length or by square metres the current charge per square metre producing the £3million income is approximately £17. If the charge were to be based on length only, and all other things remaining equal, the charge would need to be a little over £44 per metre to generate the same £3million pounds of income.

To answer your specific question, the total length of these approx 9,000 boats was almost 68,000meters = 68 kilometres or approx 43 miles - i.e approximately 30% of the river from Lechlade to Teddington.

Please note that these figures are the result of my own calculations from the original length and breadth information supplied and I do not guarantee their accuracy.

 

[Chris_d]

To illustrate the issue of charging by length or by square metres the current charge per square metre producing the £3million income is approximately £17. If the charge were to be based on length only, and all other things remaining equal, the charge would need to be a little over £44 per metre to generate the same £3million pounds of income.

[/b]

Interesting, if your figures are right I would see a reduction of about 15% if charged by length (9.6m or 31.6ft boat), so I have changed my mind and will vote for length

Who pays more though?

 

[dash300]

Interesting, if your figures are right I would see a reduction of about 15% if charged by length (9.6m or 31.6ft boat), so I have changed my mind and will vote for length
Who pays more though?

I wonder

 

[Chris_d]

I wonder

A quick calculation suggests a 60ft NB would rise from £680 to £880 using B1's figures. Think that would have a significant effect on the number of NB's on the river but then the EA income would reduce as well, can't see the point in pricing boats off the river, nobody wins.

 

[boatone]

A quick calculation suggests a 60ft NB would rise from £680 to £880 using B1's figures. Think that would have a significant effect on the number of NB's on the river but then the EA income would reduce as well, can't see the point in pricing boats off the river, nobody wins.

Exactly ! And there lies the problem - both methods have different implications but any change which is likely to result in overall reduced income would not be a good idea !

 

[Chris_d]

Exactly ! And there lies the problem - both methods have different implications but any change which is likely to result in overall reduced income would not be a good idea !

Using the same logic if you loose one NB you need 2 x 30ft crusiers to replace the lost income, which will need more than 60ft to moor! Maybe the area pricing structure isn't so bad afterall.

 

[Wavey]

I own a boat that's the width of two narrowboats. My choice, and paying according to the area of water it occupies seems fair to me.

I can remember the uproar when Thames licencing was changed from paying based on length to length times breadth. Don't see the point in the current climate of going through all that again.

It can be argued it's not the best/fairest system depending on your point of view but it's a bit like trying to change the rates system for properties. Everyone knew it wasn't necessarily the fairest but everyone more or less accepted it so leave well alone.

 

[oldgit]

Yes ...but if your not using your boat/barge much because you worrying about not being able to find somewhere to moor at the end of the day,it then stays in the marina/backwater/cut etc all year round and according to some it will not need licencing because its not going out on the river.
A loss of income not only to the EA but also to every other business relying on income from boaters going out a using their boats. ?

 

[boatone]

One of the reasons that the EA put forward for the TWO legislation was that it would enable them to harmonise their charging regime across the various waterways under their control. With the Thames being based on length x breadth and the Anglian and Medway being based on length "harmonisation" would presumably mean that either the Thames changes to length or the others change to length x breadth. The alternative is to leave well alone or do something completely different.

At the present time the income from all revenue sources is woefully short of the money needed to manage and maintain the waterway and government provides some 70% or so in grant in aid. Whatever the charging regime it is pretty obvious that licence fees alone cannot make up for the cuts in grant aid so alternative and significant new income streams need to be identified.

 

[oldgit]

The only downside to our very enjoyable trip was wondering if we would have anywhere to moor for the night, basically this ensured that we were stopping early in the day,curtailing the distances we would like to have covered.
The general consensus from locals was that the river was very quiet during the time we visited.
Mooring must be a real problem if and when the Thames gets back to normal.

 

[Chris_d]

The only downside to our very enjoyable trip was wondering if we would have anywhere to moor for the night, basically this ensured that we were stopping early in the day,curtailing the distances we would like to have covered.
The general consensus from locals was that the river was very quiet during the time we visited.
Mooring must be a real problem if and when the Thames gets back to normal.

There is a lot less boats than when the Thames was at its peak in the 70's/80's, trouble is they have all got bigger. Small Freemans, Seamasters, Dolphins and the like were the norm and 27ft was quite big. Really extravagent stuff like an Ocean 30 was realtively rare, Broom 37's were the preserve of Millionaire's. Narrowboats were bought for use on Narrow canals only and rarely ventured onto the river except to get to another canal. As far as I am aware there have been no new moorings built anywhere and many places have become unusable or had no-mooring signs put up. Wallingford used to have moorings for about 20-30 boats below the bridge on the fields, but the local council (anti boat for many years), flooding and errosion have now rendered these now useless.

 

[dash300]

There is a lot less boats than when the Thames was at its peak in the 70's/80's, trouble is they have all got bigger. Small Freemans, Seamasters, Dolphins and the like were the norm and 27ft was quite big. Really extravagent stuff like an Ocean 30 was realtively rare, Broom 37's were the preserve of Millionaire's. Narrowboats were bought for use on Narrow canals only and rarely ventured onto the river except to get to another canal. As far as I am aware there have been no new moorings built anywhere and many places have become unusable or had no-mooring signs put up. Wallingford used to have moorings for about 20-30 boats below the bridge on the fields, but the local council (anti boat for many years), flooding and errosion have now rendered these now useless.

Perhaps Wallingford Council should speak to Abingdon Council.

 

[boatone]

Perhaps Wallingford Council should speak to Abingdon Council.

Wallingford is one place on the river where new purpose built moorings have been provided in recent years - by the leisure centre on the opposite side of the bridge to the town. They were a joint enterprise between the EA and the local/county authorities IIRC.