Ash: ‘the government’s Framework Document says BW should maximise revenue from its activities by charging a market rate for its services’

The IWA, which has lobbied against BW’s proposals, believes that the navigation authority must start to promote less ambitious mooring schemes to waterside landowners. These might only entail creating simple mooring lay-bys, for boats to moor herring-bone style, with minimal facilities, but at considerably cheaper rates than those charged by commercial marinas.

There should also be every opportunity for boat-owners to form their own co-operatives and run their own moorings as boat clubs, says the IWA, adding that BW is ideally placed to introduce appropriate land-owners to boating groups to encourage this process.

‘The association has outlined some specific ideas to BW and has consistently advocated the need for a range of moorings to suit all pockets, so that waterways can continue to be enjoyed by all sectors of society,’ said Neil Edwards, IWA chief executive.

In response to the IWA press release, Sally Ash, BW’s head of boats and boating gave BB the following statement:

BW’s policies are constrained by the government’s Framework Document for British Waterways which says BW should maximise, as far as practicable, revenue from its activities by charging a market rate for its services.

BW has 4,500 directly-managed long-term moorings, at some 350 sites in England and Wales, operated as a commercial business and governed by this policy.

The past five years has seen unprecedented growth in demand for moorings. In 2007 BW has 20% more privately owned powered boats on its network than in 2002, while over the same period, the total number of mooring berths available has grown very little.

This suggests the market is not functioning adequately to bring forward new capacity to meet growing demand.

Last year, BW introduced new measures to improve information to potential investors, as part of ambitious plans to create 10,000 new off-line moorings by 2015. A consistent under-pricing of BW’s moorings would constitute a disincentive to investment and so undermine this growth.

In addition, BW does not have a remit to provide subsidised moorings or affordable housing. It cannot suppress prices in order to protect some individual customers, nor can it preserve some people’s moorings by ‘means-testing’.

The implication of objections to price increases is that BW should subsidise individual moorings. BW is simply not permitted, however, to intervene in the market process by catering for low income groups.

Neither is BW in the business of micro-managing the moorings market – its job is to ensure that the market moves as freely as possible and thereby ensure that there are attractive opportunities for all types of moorings – with investment being driven by demand. If there is a high demand for ‘no-frills’ moorings then that is what the market should ultimately provide.

However, BW agrees with the IWA’s suggestion that co-operatives and boat clubs should look to provide affordable off-line moorings and BW always welcomes proposals from them. They have the real advantage of being able to offer affordability - partly through self-management and volunteer maintenance.

Many of BW’s on-line sites are simple ‘no-frills’ sites, and are therefore at the lower end of the range of moorings in the market. They represent approximately 18% of the total long term moorings market on BW’s network. However, any increase in on-line moorings would hinder navigation and mar the visual boating experience for many.