Tolls

[senator]

Maybe Stern to is more common up North, we don't see it down south much but if that is the case keep the width times length, currently a 15' beam boat does pay 33% more than a 10' beam and thinking about it it could also be a bit unfair on a canoe or rowing boat. that said canoes, rowing boats and small dinghy's would benefit by the scrapping of the unfair small boat rates.

If the extra rate of £9.05m2 was used then a 3m canoe would be £13.58 per year. a 3m rib would be a much more acceptable £38 per year, so all the starter stuff would be cheaper, even a 3m sail boat is going to be better off. 

I would be paying exactly the same as I am now, the people that needed it would pay less, the people that bring in money to the surrounding area would pay less, absolute win/win all round, all you have done is got rid of the unfair subsidies from boats, many of which can acctually reach all parts of the Broads including under Potter. 

And before anyone starts about motor boats cause a need for dredging, how much is currently being spent the other side of potter and in fact on closed private broads? think you will find no or mostly sail traffic in these areas.

 

Oh and JM, I most definitely am not advocating that Sail power pays more than Diesel, purely the same fee for the same water.

[JennyMorgan]

If the extra rate of £9.05m2 was used then a 3m canoe would be £13.58 per year. a 3m rib would be a much more acceptable £38 per year, so all the starter stuff would be cheaper, even a 3m sail boat is going to be better off. 

Can't argue with that! However, there are environmental and health issues with diesel, ask VW, they'll confirm!

[senator]

You are of course right but having said that the amount of fuel burned by broads boats is a pretty small amount and although it is not paid directly to the Broads I expect the money collected in tax on the fuel in some way feeds back into grants paid to non national parks and the likes.

It goes into Government at one end, gets diluted and depleted and comes out the other but it still gets paid.

 

[dnks34]

Senator what your saying does make a lot of sense to me although im not convinced that the Hire companies shouldnt have to reinforce the contribution they make to the environment their core business relys upon so heavily.

Just as an example without the hire yards would there be a requirement for manned yacht stations during the tourist season?  Surely they ought to be making a higher contribution than any private vessel in order to help finance these facilities which in my way of thinking are mainly laid on to assist tourism.  

[senator]

Possibly but then tourism although not directly into BA funds brings spend into Norfolk, it is for this reason that all the staffed tourist information offices exist so maybe the local councils should contribute towards any tourism required spend to support their businesses and ultimately the tax yield they take from them?

Plus the Yacht stations do charge for their services, can't pretend to know whether they turn over a profit or a loss but again maybe that is something to be looked at to see if they could be exploited in a more profitable way.

Really do apologise for trying to bring some joined up thinking to the argument but from what I can see at the moment A certain member of the Secret Society runs his empire to suit himself. The resource of the Broads should be run for a far greater purpose than self gratification.

[Poppy]

52 minutes ago, senator said:

You are of course right but having said that the amount of fuel burned by broads boats is a pretty small amount and although it is not paid directly to the Broads I expect the money collected in tax on the fuel in some way feeds back into grants paid to non national parks and the likes.

It goes into Government at one end, gets diluted and depleted and comes out the other but it still gets paid.

 

They'll not buy many bombs from my couple of gallons each year

[senator]

Possibly a bit of an extreme solution to the stag and hen boats Poppy?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, senator said:

Definitely two sides to the same argument but I know if I was a hire company I would be putting forward the revenue generated within the Broads area by the tourists attracted by their boats..........

Its been proposed on here that private boat owners may well contribute just as much as hirers, and over a longer season.

As there are ten times as many private boats, even though they are used less, they must also contribute significantly to Broads businesses and Pubs.

They also spend a huge amount of money on moorings and boat repairs directly into local businesses, unlike the hire company's "in-house" expenditure.

 

[senator]

Without doubt Strowager but as most Broads owners own one vessel with a few having two it is not exactly enough to bring any negotiating power to the table. I know if I had 40 boats I would be looking for a quantity discount even without further benefits to surrounding businesses. 

Personally a Broads without any hire boats I could see as a bonus but I think most would see them as essential in the whole scheme of things.

one other thing being those in house facilities are actually providing employment for local people

[JennyMorgan]

I suspect, Senator, that very many of us could see a bonus in one or more types of Broads user or class of boat being absent from the system. Is that really a way forward though?

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

 

One other thing is that all a boatyards in house maintainance is actually costing the yard. If you take two identical boats, both need to have their anti fouling done, but one is a private customer, and the other is a fleet boat, the customer pays the yard to do it, whereas the fleet owner pays to do it too, resulting in substantial outgoings, rather than substantial income for the same job.  I was told by one yard owner, he would rather be paid for working on someone elses boat, rather than paying to do his own. 

I totally agree with Ian (Senator) on the hirefleet multiplyer, it`s well outdated now, and just another expoense to a yard providing private owners with services, and work for local people. Some yards are pinching everything to the bone just trying to stay afloat (excuse the punn), so considering the income a fleet operator brings to the area, it would be good to show them gratitude by scrapping the outdated multipyer. If a private boat was used for the same number of weeks as an equivalent hireboat, how would people feel if the BA suddenly presented them with a demand due to increased use of the rivers.

There is another scenario that concerns me, but i`m not prepared to post it in open forum, because the BA mafia read this forum, and it will only give them ideas.

 

 

[dnks34]

I imagine the loss of the hireboat industry would have consequences further than the just at the riverside.  

less hire boats may well make a difference to the overall ambience but I think loosing them all together would be catastrophic. 

The owner of the boat yard i moor at told me recently he believed the BA would prefer that all the broads based businesses shut down so they could just turn the area into the National Park they are claiming to be anyway.  If this is true what hope is there......its going to take a lot more than our voices to ever bring about any significant change 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by dnks34
Typo

[Guest]

1 hour ago, senator said:

Without doubt Strowager but as most Broads owners own one vessel with a few having two it is not exactly enough to bring any negotiating power to the table. I know if I had 40 boats I would be looking for a quantity discount even without further benefits to surrounding businesses. .....

That is indeed an unfortunate consequence of Broads Hire Company's having more "clout".

The greater cash input from the Private toll payers does not match their level of influence, as they have no "bulk" voting power, unlike yard owners.

I'm afraid I don't share the opinion on here that  tourism on the Broads would fade away if there were no hire craft. The whole "National Park" attracts a huge number of land-based tourists that give the Pubs and eateries far more business than the numbers arriving by boat.

I reiterate something I said in an earlier post that seems to have gone unnoticed, the business tolls are the only payment that Hire businesses have to make towards the upkeep of their main marketing attraction to visitors, the waterways themselves.

The (multiplied) annual BA toll on a hire boat represents a tiny proportion of what the customer is charged for a week's hire.

[dnks34]

Speedtriple, obviously a hire boat is an asset that earns an income for the owner by being let.  If said owner feels agrieved at the time and cost of having to maintain that asset in order to protect that income then he is most probably in the wrong job!  

 

[senator]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

I suspect, Senator, that very many of us could see a bonus in one or more types of Broads user or class of boat being absent from the system. Is that really a way forward though?

I wasn't advocating removing them, JM purely stating from a personal perspective them not being there could possibly be benificial to me as a private boat owner. My view is that they are an essential part of the Broads, providing not just customers for businesses but also a high percentage of future boat owners. How many of us started as a hire customer. I know I did and don't think I would ever have got into boating without it.

[senator]

1 hour ago, Strowager said:

I reiterate something I said in an earlier post that seems to have gone unnoticed, the business tolls are the only payment that Hire businesses have to make towards the upkeep of their main marketing attraction to visitors, the waterways themselves.

Maybe Strowager but then I drive my car on the public road for business yet pay the same as the chap going to the shop behind me.

I am assuming that they do pay business rates on the premises they operate from and wages to the staff they employ, both of which feed back to the local area and the taxes they pay will also form part of the grants paid to the BA. from central government.

Would it be fair for Barndsons to have to pay for the Broads when the sea front hotels in Yarmouth have paid nothing for their promenade, pier or in fact any other attraction around them.

They do of course have to maintain their their basins which includes dredging which I believe, although I am happy to be corrected, they have to pay a license for. Not sure if that is to the BA or the EA  

[JennyMorgan]

Senator, rightly or wrongly 'Barndsons' do pay business rates but not to the Broads Authority.

When I visit Spain I pay a tourist tax, seems eminently fair to me. Perhaps we should regard the tolls multiplier as such a tax. Granted that about 50% of the tolls goes towards Packman's 'overheads' but then about 50% goes towards the infrastructure that holiday-makers come to enjoy. It is just a pity that land-based Broads visitors don't contribute in a similar manner. 

[senator]

I don't think the Spanish pay a tourist tax in Spain though Peter. I guess an attempt could be made to extract such a tax from foreign visitors but, although they obviously do come, I have a suspicion it is not in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

What you say about land based visitors reflects what I was trying to say. the whole of the Broads tourist industry revolves around the Broads themselves, Hotels in Wroxham pay nothing to the Broads Infrastructure, how about Sutton Staith Hotel?

At least Barndsons do pay a toll, which is currently more than double that of a private craft, how is that fair when the rest of the Broads tourist industry pays nothing?

Is there an argument for the enforcement of a contribution from all tourist businesses within the Broads area. It could be a tiny amount per business that could make a huge pot for the maintenance of the Broads.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, senator said:

.......What you say about land based visitors reflects what I was trying to say. the whole of the Broads tourist industry revolves around the Broads themselves, Hotels in Wroxham pay nothing to the Broads Infrastructure, how about Sutton Staithe Hotel?

At least Barndsons do pay a toll, which is currently more than double that of a private craft, how is that fair when the rest of the Broads tourist industry pays nothing?.........

But Broads Hotels don't require dredging or moorings, unlike hire craft, for which they are essential, (and is the alleged main reason for the tolls).

It still seems quite fair to me that hire craft businesses should pay a proportionate fee for their much heavier usage of the navigation infrastructure than the average private boat.

A little over double the private toll rate seems a very reasonable payment for them to "sell on" the Broads boating experience on a commercial hire basis for their fleets of (mostly) very expensive 40ft luxury cruisers.

[senator]

Everyone is entitled to there opinion Strowager but I can't say I will be holding my breath over the fact I am about to get a reduction in my tolls as I live 170 miles away and as such can't use my boat as much as locals can, or for that matter I can't see the locals being happy about paying more for their tolls as they are closer and as such probably use their boats more.

Everyone has different usage and mine will be significantly different to someone who has retired and is free to spend months on their boat. to that ends all pensioners should pay a lot more.

90% of the hire fleet will be out of the water now until March. The hire companies put their boats out for roughly 6 months of the year, all the boats will only be out on hire for a couple of those months, yet it is seen as right that just because it is a business they should pay more than twice as much as anyone else, I can see the sentiment behind it but putting myself in business shoes I wouldn't be a happy bunny.

The businesses that are making good money in the boating side have diversified and capitalised on other tourist based streams of income to supplement their hire boat side, for the smaller yards it is a lifestyle choice and not an easy one to make any money from, a massively asset rich business that if they are lucky pays a decent wage but will return nothing until they sell up and retire.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, senator said:

........The businesses that are making good money in the boating side have diversified and capitalised on other tourist based streams of income to supplement their hire boat side, for the smaller yards it is a lifestyle choice and not an easy one to make any money from, a massively asset rich business that if they are lucky pays a decent wage but will return nothing until they sell up and retire.....

Absolutely right Senator, the era of 4000 plus hire craft on the Broads has been and gone.

I often muse over the business models of hire yards these days, especially the few remaining small ones. As you say, very large capital investment in craft and waterside premises, with bookings so much at the mercy of our fickle English weather.

I would imagine that the overheads of the tolls is a very small proportion of the profit and loss balance. If the multiplier is causing businesses to fail, then they must have been very close to it anyway, and with little incentive to continue such large capital investment.

[senator]

Possibly but you can't live on your balance sheet, going back to small yards being a lifestyle choice that pays a wage. If they have lets say 10 boats that would under standard toll conditions cost them £5k total yet under the multiplier are costing them £12k you are effectively taking £7k out of that wage. To my mind that could well be enough to decide whether they carry on or cash in.

[senator]

And under the same scenario of a small business but looking at the tiny amount it puts on a hire, lets assume full occupancy of the boats for 4 months of the year to set a bench mark. that £7000 would amount to £40 per boat per weeks hire, once again only my opinion but I would guess that is enough to make a difference to their bookings.

Edited as forgot the difference between a week and a month

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dajen said:

Many, many, many private owners have 2,3 or even 4 boats, canoes or dinghys on the system if we all got together and said that we were not tolling one of those boats the combined effect would be very significant. So if you have a boat you only use occasionally (as I do) don't toll it this and write to Pikeman and tell him so.

For many years I've tolled several dinghies and canoes in addition to my main cruiser.

The toll rates payable for such small craft are indeed quite unfairly disproportionate to their impact on the BA's overheads, especially considering that they are never left in the water between occasional uses.

I'm afraid I will still be tolling them though Dave, because I abide by the laws that everyone else has to, and I believe the action you propose would only increase the tolls, since the BA could legitimately claim back the extra expense of dealing with any large increase in toll evasion.

...and despite the occasional "rallying calls" on here, there would be no "significant" combined effect.

[senator]

That was the whole point of the one size fits all argument.

Get rid of sail, get rid of hire multipliers, get rid of set size up to costs. all pay the high extra rate currently charged for motor boats over a given size of £9.04 m2 from 1m2 to 100m2

Starter boats would be cheaper, small boats like canoes and sailing dinghy's would be cheaper, those running large sail boats would be slightly worse of but not dramatically, large motor boats would be much the same. Overall there maybe a minor adjustment to the £9.04m2 rate to balance the income.

Once done there would only be one voice when it came to boat owners instead of everyone arguing from their own perspective, as long as Packers can set boaters at each others throats he will always end up winning , remove the camps and he has to deal with everyone