Orwellian

Here https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-july-2022/public-spending-statistics-july-2022#departmental-budgets

I don't so I'll leave that bit of research with you.

DEFRA total spend for current financial year is £5.54 billion so their contract payment to CRT of £52.6 million is just 0.95% of the total.

I don't think anyone invests in CRT in the usual meaning if the word - "put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit" If the government were to stop their contract payment there is a possibility that users may decide to give more directly if they value the waterways. I suspect CRT would also have to put up prices for paying users.

Picked an uneventful day didn't they?

I'm pretty sure it was the Chesterfield Canal. Got lot's of media coverage.

Thanks for the info.

Does the quarry at Broad Cut have planning permission and if so when was it granted?

So that suggests no use of Calder & Hebble for any of this potential traffic which is probably a sensible outcome.

I thought there was a problem with the intended destination site in Dewsbury. As far as I understand it the site was adversely affected by Network Rail improvements to the Huddersfield/Leeds railway line to the extent that the company behind the new Stanley Ferry quarry put in a formal objection. I believe the railway proposals were approved.

As it's for the financial year 2021/22 why would he as he only became chair on 22 September this year? Are you saying this is a departure from what is legally required?

As a boater you're already 'visiting' the waterway whether you visit a museum, pub or anything else. Perhaps this is how they get to such a huge figure; if you tick 6 of the items that's 6 visits.

Thanks for that addition info. I suppose it is trying to ensure they capture relevant data but some elements seem to me to potentially artificially inflate the numbers. For instance item 6 in Q1. If that was a CRT owned facility - eg National Waterways Museum - I would think it legitimate to count visitors to it. But nowhere does it ask who owns the attraction. Q2 aims to eliminate data relating to non CRT waterways, but what about anyone visiting The Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds for example? This is a major attraction that does not rely on the adjacent CRT waterway to attract visitors, but the methodology outlined above suggests they will be claimed by CRT. This is unreasonable. There must be many similar attractions around the CRT network where such visitors should not be claimed by CRT. Or am I missing something?

This is extremely vague and requires those being surveyed to understand what 'an inland waterway' is (Lake Windermere or the local park lake perhaps?). And how do they know if it's a CRT managed one? Perhaps this is the reason for all those bloody signs?

I'm sure they will all be very relieved to hear it.

This truism can be applied to countless other complaints about CRT that are discussed at length on this and other similar forums.

I agree with this. The control of what boats can navigate a waterway should be by bye- laws or licencing.

That could be a really useful precedent so please can you provide a link to where we can access a report of the actual case you are referring to?

They cannot unilaterally add any provisions to existing NAAs (nor the 'connection agreements' that pre dated them). This is surely a boat licencing issue regulating navigation and should be dealt with as such.

Is 8ft 6ins beam really a 'narrowboat'?

They are part of CRT but are not part of it's statutory functions. Like lots of other activities. Nothing sinister just a fact.

Thank you.

That's interesting thank you. Do you know how much the dredging is costing?