Consultation outcome

Environment Agency charge proposals for boat registration from January 2025: consultation response

Updated 27 November 2024

Introduction

The Environment Agency is the second largest navigation authority in the UK. We are responsible for managing 1,010km of inland waterways and the Rye and Lydney harbours. It’s our job to keep these waterways open and safe for a variety of uses, but especially for boating.  

We launched a public consultation in May 2024 asking our customers for their views on our proposals for navigation boat registration charges from January 2025.

The aim of these proposals was to secure an increase in funding in response to inflation over the last 3 years. This would help us to continue to deliver the navigation service, while we develop our longer-term strategy and review how we fund the boat registration service in the future.

We proposed to:

• implement a 1-year increase of 9% to existing boat registration charges from 1 January 2025 for River Thames and 1 April 2025 for Anglian Waterways and Medway Navigation
• take account of this increase in our negotiations about our national joint registration agreements with Canal and River Trust (Gold licence), Paddle UK and British Rowing

We also advised that we would:

• apply an increase in line with inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in subsequent years unless we consult on a different level of increase
• make administrative changes to definitions as outlined in the consultation

This document provides an overview of how we ran the consultation and a summary of the responses we received. We identify key themes raised by consultees and set out our responses to each. We also confirm our final decision and the overall outcome of the consultation.

How we ran the consultation

We ran the consultation for 12 weeks from 25 May 2024 to 16 August 2024.

The consultation was hosted on GOV.UK and our Citizen Space consultations website and was open to anybody to take part. Those not able to give their views online were able to request a copy of the consultation document and a response form to allow them to respond by email or post.

We ran the consultation in line with our legal requirements to consult following the Cabinet Office’s consultation principles guidelines. We notified ministers of our intention to consult.

It was important for us to give our customers the opportunity to understand the proposals and the impact they will have. We encouraged our customers to give us their views through the consultation and publicised it openly.

Due to a General Election being announced, the Environment Agency (as a government delivery body) was subject to pre-election period guidance restrictions which came into force the day after we launched this consultation. This limited the communications and engagement that we could do during the consultation. We did extensive communications on the launch date, before the restrictions came into place, and following the election when the restrictions were lifted. After the election, we also extended the consultation by 1 week to give more time for us to engage and for customers to respond.

We sent notification of the consultation directly to customers either by email if we had an email address on our records, or by post. In addition, we also sent a notification by text message to all customers for whom we held a mobile number. Following the election, we sent reminders to customers by email.

We included all customers who held an annual boat registration in either 2023 or 2024. This included any customers with a current Gold licence (a joint registration between the Environment Agency and Canal and River Trust). We sent 27,379 notifications in total in May and 13,653 in July.

We issued a press release to regional and local media in Anglian, Medway and Thames areas and to national boating and waterways trade titles.

We notified our national and area stakeholder groups directly when the consultation was launched and asked them to share the information with those who they represent.

Following the General Election, we held 3 live question and answer sessions in July and early August. This gave our stakeholder representatives the opportunity to ask questions on the proposals, check their understanding and seek clarity before responding. It was also an opportunity for them to give us their feedback on the proposals.

Summary of key findings and actions we will take

In this section we outline the key findings from the consultation. This includes an overview of the responses and the outcome. There is also a summary of the key themes raised by consultees, with our response to each of these.

Overview of responses

We received a total of 1,726 responses to the consultation. Of these responses, 1,686 were submitted using our Citizen Space consultation tool and 9 were sent using our consultation response form (total of 1,695). We also received 31 further responses by email or letter. We considered these emails and letters alongside the formal responses but could not include them in the numerical summaries because they did not align with the format of our consultation questions.

The 1,695 formal responses were submitted by:

• 1,612 individuals
• 58 organisations or groups
• 12 others
• 13 who provided no information

The breakdown of respondents from each waterway were:

• 1,005 from River Thames (59% of responses)
• 506 from Anglian Waterways (30% of responses)
• 57 from Medway navigation (3% of responses)
• 127 did not select a waterway (7% of responses)

You can find detailed information on the responses to each question in Annex 1. This includes the comments we received. Annex 2 gives a list of organisations and groups that participated in the consultation. These organisations represent a broad range of private, community and commercial interests. Many highlighted that their response was on behalf of several customers.

The overall response to the consultation represents approximately a 10% response rate from our customer base. We are really pleased with this response. We would like to thank all those who participated in the consultation and took time to give such valuable feedback.  

We thoroughly reviewed all the responses, including all the comments our customers made. It was clear from the responses that many customers did not support our proposal to increase charges by 9%.

The responses to question 1 were:

• strongly agree – 64
• agree – 204
• neither agree nor disagree – 155
• disagree – 338
• strongly disagree – 910
• do not know – 7
• not applicable – 7
• did not answer – 10

Overall, 74% gave a negative response and 16% gave a positive response.

Customers told us charges are already high, and many said the service they receive is poor and does not meet their expectation. Responses said that any further increases should lead to a better service. They also told us that we should do more to make sure all boaters are paying to use the waterways through better compliance and enforcement. Some customers did recognise the need for charges to increase and said they would support increases if they saw an improved service.

Consultation outcome

We considered all the information before making our final decision. The responses we received were very helpful in understanding our customers’ concerns and issues.

After careful consideration, we have made the difficult decision to progress as outlined in the consultation. We have approval for this approach from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra and HM Treasury. It has also been approved by the Environment Agency board.

This means we will:

• implement a 1-year increase of 9% to existing boat registration charges from 1 January 2025 for River Thames and 1 April 2025 for Anglian Waterways and Medway Navigation
• apply an increase in line with inflation using the CPI in subsequent years unless we consult on a different level of increase
• make administrative changes to definitions as outlined in the consultation
• use this increase for negotiations about our national joint registration agreements with Canal and River Trust (Gold licence), Paddle UK and British Rowing

We understand that there was strong opposition to this level of increase and recognise that implementing this increase will impact our customers. We also heard that customers are not happy with the service they currently receive from us.

We agree that our service is not where it should be right now, and we need to address this. To do this, we must secure this funding. Without it, increasing costs will lead to further deterioration of the service. We will not be able to maintain the service at the current level or make any improvements.

The additional income will cover our increased costs and provide some additional capacity which we will focus on improving our compliance activities. The annual inflationary increase linked to CPI will reduce the chances of costs exceeding income in the future. We will also work hard to make sure we are delivering the service as efficiently as possible. 

We do recognise these increases could impact our boat registration numbers and therefore overall income. We did consider this risk against the risks of not increasing our charges by this level. Taking all the risks into account, we decided we had to proceed with our proposals.

Key themes and our response

In this section we describe the key themes raised by consultees, and our response to each of these.

The key themes which we have drawn from the consultation are:

• our service – feedback about the service we provide and how increases should lead to improvements in service
• customer impact (economic) – feedback about the size of the increase and the impact on customers and registration numbers
• customer impact (environmental) – feedback about environmental issues which impact access to the waterways such as flooding, high river flows and the quality of the water
• more compliance and enforcement – feedback on how we should do more to enforce unregistered boats on our waterways
• business approach – feedback on the efficiency of the management of the service
• other comments – feedback with suggestion of how we can improve the service, generate more income and make changes to the charging scheme

Our service

Summary of responses

The service we provide for our customers was a major concern for many of those who responded. Comments about service represented the highest percentage of overall comments we received. Many highlighted a decline in the quality of service despite increasing charges. Customers said the maintenance of rivers and facilities has deteriorated. Issues such as poor maintenance, inadequate facilities and poor management of vegetation were mentioned. Additionally, there were comments about the lack of response or slow response times when issues are reported. Feedback from Thames customers also mentioned a reduction in lock keepers covering locks, particularly at peak times in the boating season.

Many reported that rivers have become unnavigable at times, causing significant inconvenience. Users feel that they are not getting value for money, especially when they are unable to use the waterways for large parts of the year due to poor maintenance. There was also a call for more transparency regarding how funds are spent, with some users questioning the allocation of resources.

“People need to see improvements which boaters can use if charges are being increased.”

Overall, the feedback suggests that while users are willing to pay, they expect to see a corresponding improvement in the quality and reliability of the service they receive.

Our response

We share our customers’ concerns about our service. We have faced challenges from increased inflation and pressures on funding over recent years which has impacted the service. We have already started to review what we can do to improve this. We want to make improvements for the 2025 season by focusing on what will make the biggest impact for our waterway communities.

Our priorities for 2025 are to:

• make improvements to the customer experience
• stabilise the decline in assets

We will focus on enhancing our revenue, particularly through improved compliance. We also plan to carry out an assessment of all our priority navigation assets before the start of the main boating season. This will help us to identify potential issues that could affect their performance. Where possible we will put mitigation measures in place to make sure the service is available for people to use, improving reliability. Other changes we have made include a new operational framework with specialist contractors to improve our ability to respond to breakdowns. We are also prioritising asset refurbishments within our capital programme to address known asset reliability issues and working with our field delivery teams on the asset breakdown activities they can support with. We will be reviewing how we are using contractor frameworks to best effect in support of this work. 

On the Thames, we will also look at how we can provide staff at locks at key times and locations, when it makes the biggest impact.

Over the next year, we will be developing a new strategy for our navigation business to secure the sustainable future of our waterways. We will engage with our customers to bring them into our decision making.

Customer impact (economic)

Summary of responses

Customers raised significant concerns about the proposals, particularly regarding the impact on their finances and their overall experience. They told us the additional costs will place a financial burden on them, especially in times of economic uncertainty. Some customers have mentioned that higher charges may force them to reconsider their use of the waterways, potentially leading to a decrease in the number of users and overall income. They suggested this could have a negative impact on the community and the overall vibrancy of the waterways.

Many customers said previous increases in charges have not led to a visible improvement in the service they receive. They believe if they are expected to pay more, there should be a corresponding improvement in the quality and reliability of the service. Overall, the feedback suggests that while our customers understand the need for increases, they expect transparency and tangible improvements in return for the higher charges.

“The costs continue to rise and yet the service and maintenance of the river and facilities continues to decline. Previous rate increases have never resulted in improved services.”

Our response

We know these increases will be difficult for our customers. The current economic climate is having a significant impact on many individuals and particularly businesses across our waterways. It is a fine balance and a decision we have not taken lightly. We must take this essential step to protect the current service while we are developing a longer-term strategy.

The additional income will not be enough to meet all our customers’ expectations in the first year. It will enable us to halt the decline and start to return the waterways to a position we aspire to. We will work together as one navigation business to focus on the improvements our customers have told us they value most, within the resources we have available.

Customer impact (environmental)

Comments under this theme related to customers being impacted by environmental issues such as flooding and high river flows impacting their access and use of the waterways. Some also made comments about the water quality.

“Rivers are not navigable for large parts of the year either due to flood or extended lock maintenance. I accept that we cannot predict rainfall and strong streams however, being unable to navigate outside of this is not acceptable. Lock closures will mean that I estimate a maximum of 5 months usage this year.” 

Our response

We understand the frustration that prolonged flooding and high river flows cause our customers. It also impacts us in delivering the service and our maintenance work, especially as the health, safety and wellbeing of our staff is always our priority. These impacts are determined by the weather and therefore are largely outside of our control. However, as it impacts our customers and our service, we must consider these impacts. With climate change predictions of wetter winters causing increased high flow variability, we know we need to do more to better understand the impacts this will have on our service and how we adapt to these challenges going forward.  

When it comes to water quality, we understand this is increasingly important to those who enjoy the waterways for their leisure and recreation. Although water quality is not managed within the navigation business and therefore not funded by boat registration charges, as an organisation we are making changes to the way we deliver our water quality work. This is driven by the government’s plan for water and the Environment Agency business plan for 2024 to 2025 outlines our priorities.

We are doing what we can to champion the issues of our users with those who are working to deliver this work. The feedback from this consultation will help us do this.

More compliance and enforcement

Many users expressed concerns about the lack of enforcement of unregistered boats. They feel that we should take stronger actions against unregistered boats as they take up valuable mooring space and do not contribute to the maintenance costs. More control on illegal mooring of boats and active removal of non-registered boats was also mentioned. Overall, there is a call for more effort to enforce boat registration on the rivers to ensure fairness and proper use of resources. Feedback was slightly higher from Thames and Medway customers than from those responding from our Anglian Waterways.

“As a fee-paying license holder there are too many unregistered, unlicensed and permanently moored boats on the Thames. These should be dealt with as they take up valuable mooring space for those of us who are paying.”

Our response

We do recognise that our compliance and enforcement work is vital for us to manage our waterways and protect our income. We agree it is important that all those using our waterways are contributing to their upkeep. We enforce our regulations but need to prioritise this alongside other important activities. We try to balance the service we can provide with the resources we have available.

We do understand the concerns raised through this consultation about our compliance and enforcement activity. We know we need to improve this area of our service. We are developing new approaches for our compliance and enforcement work. We are focusing on the priority issues that are causing concern across our waterways and that will generate further income for us to invest in our service. We will use the feedback from this consultation to shape this strategy. We will prioritise improvements to our compliance work with the additional income we receive through this increase to charges. We are confident you will see the benefits of this in the future.

Business approach

Under this theme, comments relating to competent or efficient management of the waterways received the highest number of responses. Customers raised issues such as management structures, use of staff resources and wanting more efficiencies in the use of the funding and delivery of the service.

“You need to look at saving money internally rather than wasting money and expecting us to pay for it.”

Our response 

We have already made improvements to the governance for the navigation business which will support us to deliver a more efficient service.

In April 2024, our navigation portfolio joined with the Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) directorate. This streamlined the overall governance. It has brought the navigation strategy, resourcing, service and asset management activity under the same leadership. Importantly, this provides the opportunity to align and optimise our asset management and investment planning, so it is consistent with the objectives of our asset management strategy. 

We have set up a Navigation Executive Leadership Group which brings together the national deputy director with overall responsibility for navigation with all area directors that have navigation in their remit. We are working together to deliver a one-business approach across national and area operational teams.  

Together we are focusing on understanding what is important to our customers and what we need to do to more closely meet their expectations.  

This is only the start, there is still more to do. We are committed to making sure we are delivering the service in the most efficient way we can with the funding and resources we have.

Other comments

Many customers provided various suggestions to improve the service. Overall, the feedback suggests that users are looking for us to consider innovative and practical solutions to improve the management and sustainability of the waterways. These included suggestions to increase income.

Customers also gave examples of other suggestions we should consider when reviewing our charges. For example, exemptions, reduced charges for reduced service, charges should be more consistent, refunds due to winter flooding, more flexibility for registration periods and rolling registration year.

Our response 

We know that we must do more to bring in other sources of income and become a more commercially focused organisation.  

Our Environment Agency business plan for 2024 to 2025 outlines our priorities for the year ahead. It shows our commitment to establishing a robust commercial plan. We are also building our commercial plan for the navigation business, focusing on the commercial opportunities which bring the maximum benefits and revenue. We thank customers for the suggestions they have given. We will review them as we take this work forward. 

We did make changes to the charging scheme following our last charges consultation, but there is always more we can do. We will be reviewing this again, alongside developing the strategy. We will consider the suggestions when we do this.

Next steps

We will apply the changes to our legal charging scheme, which we will implement from 1 January 2025 for the Thames and 1 April 2025 for the Anglian waterways and the Medway navigation. In following years, we will increase in line with inflation using the CPI in subsequent years unless we consult on a different level of increase.

We will use the feedback from the consultation to help improve our service for 2025 and develop our new strategy. This will include measures that we can report progress against. The feedback will help us understand what is important to our customers. We will involve stakeholders and customers as we take this work forward.

We will monitor boat registration numbers while we undertake a full review of our charges to understand the full cost of the navigation service and contribution boat registration charges should make to our overall funding. This review will link with the strategy to ensure it links to the service we want to provide.

We have now published the updated charging scheme on GOV.UK.

Annex 1: Environment Agency charge proposals for boat registration from January 2025 – detailed summary of consultation responses

This annex sets out the responses we received to our consultation on our charge proposals for boat registration from January 2025.

Questions are set out in the same format as they were presented in the online tool and response form. Question 1 included a multiple-choice question and a free text box for comments. Questions 2 and 3 included free text boxes for comments.

To make sure we take a consistent approach to analysing the comments received during charges consultations, we maintain a standardised list of ‘tags’ and definitions. For each comment received, we ‘tag’ the free text response using a descriptor, and report the number of times each tag is identified. All the tags are then grouped into themes giving us an overall idea of respondents’ feedback. This information helps to guide our response.

The consultation questions for our charge proposals for boat registration from January 2025 were divided into 2 topics: 

• about you and consultation feedback
• proposal to increase the boat registration fees for River Thames, Anglian waterways and Medway navigation

We received 1,695 responses through the online tool and consultation response form and 31 emails or letters with comments relating to the consultation.

About you  

Within the online tool and response form, we included an ‘about you’ section to provide us with an understanding of who responded and to help us better analyse the consultation feedback.

For the 1,695 responses (1,686 online and 9 using our consultation response form), we asked if you were giving a personal response as an individual or providing a response on behalf of an organisation and you said: 

• responding as an individual – 1,612
• responding on behalf of an organisation or group – 58
• other – 12
• no answer given – 13

We asked you to tell us about your boat registration and you said: 

• I have an annual private boat registration – 1,408
• I have an annual business boat registration – 25
• I have a charity or not-for-profit registration – 20
• I have an annual joint registration (Gold, canoe, rowing) – 118
• I normally purchase a visitor registration – 43
• I do not have a boat registration – 26
• I have more than one type of boat registration – 41
• No answer given – 14

If you answered (a) or (b) or (c) we asked you tell us which river or waterway your boat or boats are registered on and you said: 

• Great Ouse system – Anglian waterways – 306
• Lincolnshire waterways – Anglian waterways – 17
• Medway navigation – 54
• River Cam – Anglian waterways – 20
• River Nene – Anglian waterways – 120
• River Stour – Anglian waterways – 3
• River Thames – 926
• No answer given – 7

If you answered (e) (normally purchase a visitor boat registration) we asked you tell us which of the following waterways you use and you said:

• Anglian waterways – 4
• River Thames – 17
• No answer given – 22

We asked what type of boat you have, and you said: 

• powered boat – 1,559
• unpowered enclosed boat (houseboat) – 15
• unpowered open boat – 128
• other – 57
• not applicable – 7

Consultation questions

The opinion of the respondents is shown in this section. 

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to increase boat registration charges on the River Thames, Anglian waterways, and Medway navigation by 9%?

This question received more negative than positive feedback, with strongly disagree showing the greater response.

You said:

• strongly agree – 64
• agree – 204
• neither agree nor disagree – 155
• disagree – 338
• strongly disagree – 910
• do not know – 7
• not applicable – 7
• did not answer – 10

We received 1,563 comments to this question, which was 92% of the total responses received to the consultation. We analysed all these comments, identifying themes and tags. (The number of times each tag was identified is stated in brackets.) These are summarised as follows:

Our service: mentioned in 58% of the comments

• Poor (or declining) service (776)
• Increased charge should improve our service (59)

The remaining tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘have not listened to customers’, ‘be more transparent’, ‘improved or digital tech needed’ and ‘good service or value for money’.

Customer impact: mentioned in 55% of the comments

• All or some charges too high (515)
• Customers impacted by environmental issues (223)
• Impact to customers (64)

The remaining tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘customers may or will leave waterway’ and ‘wider economic issues’.

More compliance and enforcement: mentioned in 26% of the comments

• More enforcement needed (408)

The remaining tag was identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘want stronger environmental protection’

Business approach: mentioned in 19% of the comments

• Competent or efficient management (150)
• Charges income may reduce (fewer boaters) (93)

The remaining tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘charge management’ and ‘seek other funding streams’.

Approve proposals: mentioned in 13% of the comments

• Qualified support for proposal (109)
• Supports proposal (no objections noted) (93)

Charge scheme design: mentioned in 9% of the comments

• Other suggestion for proposal (137)

The remaining tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘Gold licence’, ‘customer challenging information’ and ‘charging and permitting policy’.

Other: mentioned in 8% of the comments

• Health and safety issues (61)
• Other issue (59)

Consultation design: mentioned in 2% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 15 times in the comments – ‘error in fact or figure or link’ (where this was identified it was fixed), ‘insufficient information’, ‘presentation or information too confusing and ‘running of consultation’.

Question 2: With the proposed increase of 9% in the boat registration charges, how will this affect your use of our waterways?

We received 1,530 comments to this question, which was 90% of the total responses received to the consultation. We analysed all these comments, identifying themes and tags. (The number of times each tag was identified is stated in brackets.) These are summarised as follows:

Customer impact: mentioned in 97% of the comments

• No, will not affect use (of river) (518)
• Customer may or will sell boat (273)
• Customers may or will leave waterway (234)
• Yes, will affect use (of river) (158)
• May affect use (of river) (153)
• Impact to customer (90)

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘all or some charges too high’ and ‘customers impacted by environmental issues’.

Our service: mentioned in 13% of the comments

• Poor (or declining) service (160)

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘increase in charge should improve service’, ‘good service or value for money’ and ‘be more transparent.

Business approach: mentioned in 4% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘charges income may reduce (fewer boaters)’ and ‘competent, efficient management’.

Other: mentioned in 3% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘other issue’ and ‘health and safety issues.

Charge scheme design: mentioned in 3% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘other suggestion for proposal’ and ‘Gold licence’.

More compliance and enforcement: mentioned in 2% of the comments

The following tag was identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘more enforcement’

Agree proposals: mentioned in less than 1% of the comments

The following tag was identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘qualified support for proposal’.

Question 3: Please share any additional comments that you think may help us improve our current proposals.

We received 1,066 comments to this question, which was 63% of the total responses received to the consultation. We analysed all these comments, identifying themes and tags. (The number of times each tag was identified is stated in brackets.) These are summarised as follows:

Our service: mentioned in 39% of the comments

• Poor (or declining) service (268)
• Increased charge should improve our service (96)

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘be more transparent’, ‘improved or digital tech needed’ and ‘good service or value for money’.

Charge scheme design: mentioned in 29% of the comments

• Other suggestion for proposal (303)

The following tag was identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘Gold licence’.

More enforcement: mentioned in 24% of the comments

• More enforcement needed (257)

Customer impact: mentioned in 19% of the comments

• All or some charges too high (117)
• Customers impacted by environmental issues (69)

The following tag was identified less than 20 times in the comments – ‘impact to customers (economic)’.

Business approach: mentioned in 17% of the comments

• Competent or efficient management (160)

The following tag was identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘charges income may reduce (fewer boaters)’.

Other: mentioned in 7% of the comments

• Other issue (77)

Consultation design: mentioned in 2% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘insufficient information’, ‘error in fact or figure or link’ and ‘presentation or info too confusing’.

Agree proposals: mentioned in less than 1% of the comments

The following tag was identified less than 50 times in the comments – ‘qualified support for proposal’.

We received many other suggestions as part of the response to question 3. These will be considered going forward in the next review and in the future business plan. These included:

• requesting part year charges
• refund when not able to use the waterway
• pro rata charge for navigable part of waterway
• more moorings

Letter and email responses

We analysed all the comments submitted in the 31 responses received by letter or email (those which did not align with the consultation format or response form) to identify the main themes raised and the number of times each was mentioned.

Our service: mentioned in 100% of the comments 

• Poor (or declining) service (25)

The following tags were identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘be more transparent’, ‘have not listened to customers’ and ‘increased charge should improve our service’

Customer impact: mentioned in 67% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘all or some charges too high’, ‘customers may or will leave waterway’, ‘customers impacted by environmental issues’ and ‘impact to customers (economic)’.

Business approach: mentioned in 61% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘charge management’, ‘charges income may reduce (fewer boaters)’ and ‘competent or efficient management’.

Other: mentioned in 35% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘health and safety issues’ and ‘other issue’.

More enforcement: mentioned in 35% of the comments

• More enforcement needed (10)

The following tag was identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘want stronger environmental protection’.

Charge scheme design: mentioned in 32% of the comments

The following tags were identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘Gold licence’ and ‘other suggestion for proposal’.

Consultation design: mentioned in 3% of the comments

The following tag was identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘insufficient information’.

Agree proposals: mentioned in 3% of the comments

The following tag was identified less than 10 times in the comments – ‘qualified support for proposal’.

Annex 2: List of consultation participants

The number of respondents identifying as a business or organisation may not match with the number of organisations named. This is because some respondents indicated they were a business but did not provide their business name, and others requested that their response should not be published.

List of names submitted by respondents identifying as an organisation or business

14th Richmond Scout Boating Centre

1st Charlton Air and Sea Scouts

1st Reading (YMCA) Sea Scout Group

Abingdon School Canoe Club

AJW Marine

Aquarius Sailing Club

Bisham Abbey Sailing and Navigation School Ltd

Boaters against the poorly run Environment Agency

Bowles Rocks

British Marine

British Rowing

Burway Rowing Club

Cambridgeshire Marine Industries

Caversham Boat Services

Christ Church College Oxford

Crusader community boating

DBA – The Barge Association

Elton Boat club, Warmington Mill, Northamptonshire.

Goring Thames Sailing Club

Happy Boating Ltd BSS examiner

Inland Waterways Association

Island Bohemian Bowls Club

Kingston River Cruises Ltd T/A Turk Launches

Kris Cruisers

Laburnum Boat Club (children’s charity)

Longridge Activity Centre

Mann Made Trustees Limited

myoutdooradventure.co.uk

National Association of Boat Owners

National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA)

Nauticalia Ltd

Nene Extreme Adventures Ltd

On behalf of Huntingdon Boat Club as Honorary Secretary

Oxford and District Anglers Association

Pharaoh’s Island Residents Association

River Stour Trust

Riverside watch

Royal Yachting Association

Sea cadets

Sea Ranger Association

St. Edmund Hall Boat Club

Sudbury Rowing Club

Tamesis Club

Thames RUG8

The Adventure Paddle Company

The Electric Boat Company Ltd

The Langley Academy rowing club

Tonbridge School

Union Canal Carriers Limited

Walbrook Rowing Club Teddington

Walton Boat Hire

Whittington’s Tea Barge