Jump to content

The future of our canals?


Featured Posts

Just now, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Not true as you have seen fit to join in ...

Nice try which avoids a very simple straight forward question.

 

And the floater link?, what's the story there then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It is unlikely that this would be executed prior to Section 11 which allows Defra to reduce or claw back grant.

Indeed, and I cited a couple of examples earlier :

 

1) a breach of the agreement - ie, failing to comply with the KPI's

2) becoming insolvent - 'going bust.

 

 

 

11 EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO DEFRA
11.1 The parties agree that each of the events or circumstances set out below is an Event of Default:
11.1.1 CRT commits a Material Breach of this Grant Agreement or the Trust Settlement;
11.1.2 CRT commits a Material Breach of legal or statutory obligations, including but not limited to charity and company law, audit and financial requirements or Commission requirements;
11.1.3 the Protector issues a Red Non-compliance Notice (as described in Schedule 8 (The Protector));
11.1.4 the Grant is used by CRT for a purpose other than the Purpose;
11.1.5 CRT wilfully or intentionally provides Defra with any misleading or inaccurate information;
11.1.6 CRT has not repaid within a reasonable period money that Defra has incorrectly paid to CRT either as a result of administrative error or otherwise;
11.1.7 CRT commits or has committed a Prohibited Act;
11.1.8 CRT is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due for reasons other than Defra’s failure to comply with this Grant Agreement;
11.1.9 CRT becomes insolvent or subject to the appointment of an administrator or receiver (other than for the purpose of a bona fide internal reorganisation or amalgamation);
11.1.10 a court makes an order that CRT be wound up;
11.1.11 a meeting of creditors of CRT passes or a meeting of members or any class of members passes a resolution to wind-up CRT (other than for the purposes of a bona fide internal reorganisation or amalgamation);
11.1.12 CRT is struck from the register at Companies House and/or the Commission, or is otherwise prohibited from continuing its activities under any legislation in force and/or by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
11.1.13 CRT ceases to operate, becomes insolvent or goes into administration, receivership or liquidation before all or any part of the Grant has been expended; or
11.1.14 an audit report on CRT’s accounts refers to a fundamental uncertainty or contains an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion which would materially and adversely affect CRT’s ability to deliver the Activities.


11.2 Without prejudice to Defra’s other rights and remedies, but subject to the provisions of Clause 11.5, Defra may:
11.2.1 delay, reduce, withhold or suspend payment of the Grant (or such part of it as shall not have been paid) in whole or in part and/or require repayment forthwith in whole or in part of the Grant (or such part of it as shall have been paid); and/or
11.2.2 terminate the Grant Agreement with immediate effect,


if Defra determines that one or more Events of Default have occurred. In the event that Defra requires repayment in whole or in part of the Grant pursuant to Clause 11.2.1, CRT shall repay such sum immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed, and I cited a couple of examples earlier :

 

1) a breach of the agreement - ie, failing to comply with the KPI's

2) becoming insolvent - 'going bust.

 

 

 

11 EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO DEFRA
11.1 The parties agree that each of the events or circumstances set out below is an Event of Default:
11.1.1 CRT commits a Material Breach of this Grant Agreement or the Trust Settlement;
11.1.2 CRT commits a Material Breach of legal or statutory obligations, including but not limited to charity and company law, audit and financial requirements or Commission requirements;
11.1.3 the Protector issues a Red Non-compliance Notice (as described in Schedule 8 (The Protector));
11.1.4 the Grant is used by CRT for a purpose other than the Purpose;
11.1.5 CRT wilfully or intentionally provides Defra with any misleading or inaccurate information;
11.1.6 CRT has not repaid within a reasonable period money that Defra has incorrectly paid to CRT either as a result of administrative error or otherwise;
11.1.7 CRT commits or has committed a Prohibited Act;
11.1.8 CRT is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due for reasons other than Defra’s failure to comply with this Grant Agreement;
11.1.9 CRT becomes insolvent or subject to the appointment of an administrator or receiver (other than for the purpose of a bona fide internal reorganisation or amalgamation);
11.1.10 a court makes an order that CRT be wound up;
11.1.11 a meeting of creditors of CRT passes or a meeting of members or any class of members passes a resolution to wind-up CRT (other than for the purposes of a bona fide internal reorganisation or amalgamation);
11.1.12 CRT is struck from the register at Companies House and/or the Commission, or is otherwise prohibited from continuing its activities under any legislation in force and/or by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
11.1.13 CRT ceases to operate, becomes insolvent or goes into administration, receivership or liquidation before all or any part of the Grant has been expended; or
11.1.14 an audit report on CRT’s accounts refers to a fundamental uncertainty or contains an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion which would materially and adversely affect CRT’s ability to deliver the Activities.


11.2 Without prejudice to Defra’s other rights and remedies, but subject to the provisions of Clause 11.5, Defra may:
11.2.1 delay, reduce, withhold or suspend payment of the Grant (or such part of it as shall not have been paid) in whole or in part and/or require repayment forthwith in whole or in part of the Grant (or such part of it as shall have been paid); and/or
11.2.2 terminate the Grant Agreement with immediate effect,


if Defra determines that one or more Events of Default have occurred. In the event that Defra requires repayment in whole or in part of the Grant pursuant to Clause 11.2.1, CRT shall repay such sum immediately.

It is important to note that the Toddbrook incident has highlighted that CRT has failed to maintain its 72 safety critical reservoirs in good order.

I am trying to get more information -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/steps_taken_by_defra_to_ensure_s

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It is important to note that the Toddbrook incident has highlighted that CRT has failed to maintain its 72 safety critical reservoirs in good order.

I am trying to get more information -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/steps_taken_by_defra_to_ensure_s

  

No doubt the answer will be "its not in the public interest to release that information".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It is important to note that the Toddbrook incident has highlighted that CRT has failed to maintain its 72 safety critical reservoirs in good order.

I am trying to get more information -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/steps_taken_by_defra_to_ensure_s

  

Your request is far too broad and highly unlikely to elicit the information you seek, at least in any meaningful detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No doubt the answer will be "its not in the public interest to release that information".

Its worded very poorly and none specific, but gives him the golden opportunity to complain when they are unable to garner all the information required.

 

It would then make a great story in 'The Floater' though................cough.

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No doubt the answer will be "its not in the public interest to release that information".

 

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Your request is far too broad and highly unlikely to elicit the information you seek, at least in any meaningful detail.

The value of making an information request via whatdotheyknow.com  is that the response is in in public domain.

CRT has a duty under FOI and EIR to assist the person making the request and its response is public.





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

The value of making an information request via whatdotheyknow.com  is that the response is in in public domain.

CRT has a duty under FOI and EIR to assist the person making the request and its response is public.





 

Yes  that is my understanding too.

 

Changes nothing about what ive said though.

 

Should I submit one about 'what happened to the Floater'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Yes  that is my understanding too.

 

Changes nothing about what ive said though.

 

Should I submit one about 'what happened to the Floater'?

I think your suggestion regarding my information request shows an abysmal understanding of legislation. 

However, if you want to make an information request  about  'what happened to the Floater'? ' - you can do so at -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/canal_river_trust

 

Please keep us informed of your progress ...

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think your suggestion regarding my information request shows an abysmal understanding of legislation. 

However, if you want to make an information request  about  'what happened to the Floater'? ' - you can do so at -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/canal_river_trust

 

Please keep us informed of your progress ...

Trust me I have much more pressing things to do with my time........like washing my hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

and making over 20 posts on this thread. [snigger]   ;)

I wasn't aware there was some sort of limit. (Snigger).

 

 

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rambling Boater said:

There isn't but the posts obviosly took priority over washing your hair.  :)

I rarely wash my hair last thing at night.

 

So yes 'obviously'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rambling Boater said:

You don't put it in the washing machine then?

Correct, no I dont.

 

Anyway as it happens I dont have access to one at the mo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Primitive or what - have you reached the top of that hill yet and are camping ?

Waiting for repair.

 

Luckily it came with a five year warranty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, IanD said:

Let me just check that I've understood the argument against CaRT increasing the annual license fee to pay for much-needed canal maintenance...

 

-- CaRT doesn't spend enough on canal maintenance and hasn't for many years

-- this is causing the system to deteriorate and we don't want this to continue (or get worse)

-- we like paying a tiny amount to cruise/live on the canals just like we have for many years, it's a really cheap way to live innit

-- we don't want to pay more 'cos it's not fair and some people couldn't afford it (and/or don't want to / can't ask welfare to pay)

-- so somebody else (e.g. walkers, cyclists, Joe Public) should cough up, not us, even though we get by far the biggest benefit from the canals

 

Is that right? Really?

 

Boat license fees are currently in the region of £1000 which is £20 a week. To increase the overall CRT budget by 25% (£50M) -- probably what is needed make a big enough difference to fix the problem -- it would need to increase to about £2500 which is £50 a week. For what this gets you and compared to the other costs of buying/running a boat -- and certainly compared to the costs of living on land -- this is an increase from ludicrously cheap to very cheap...

 

CaRT wouldn't be able to make such a big change overnight anyway because they don't have the maintenance staff or equipment to suddenly use up another £50M a year, this would have to be built up over maybe 5 years -- and it would be better value to do this in-house instead of subcontracting it, that way money isn't creamed off to service company shareholders and CaRT build up a skilled workforce who maybe even care about the canals a bit.

 

So the fee might go up by about £300 a year for 5 years, by which time we could have a properly maintained canal system that works in the long term. This increase is gradual enough that it wouldn't immediately throw people out onto the street, and if it makes them change their lifestyle it gives enough time to do it.

 

Could anybody who really loves the canals -- presumably, most people on this forum -- honestly object to this? ?

This would require CRT to admit that they have been grossly underspending and allowing the waterways to fall into decay. They would also have to come clean on the failure to develop the 'new' charitable income stream which was estimated at producing £10m pa net from 100,000 Friends after 10 years.

 

They would also have to explain why they have invested in non-operational assets at the expense of operational assets.

 

Finally, they would have to explain why they have lied to Defra and the public about the condition of the waterways.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

This would require CRT to admit that they have been grossly underspending and allowing the waterways to fall into decay. They would also have to come clean on the failure to develop the 'new' charitable income stream which was estimated at producing £10m pa net from 100,000 Friends after 10 years.

 

They would also have to explain why they have invested in non-operational assets at the expense of operational assets.

 

Finally, they would have to explain why they have lied to Defra and the public about the condition of the waterways.

 

 

Yes they'd have to 'fess up -- but it's blindingly obvious that the Friends income stream has turned out to be pie-in-the-sky, so I can't see how they can avoid that.

 

Can you explain the "non-operational assets" comment?

 

In order to justify a big increase in the license fee they'd have to explain why they needed it, and since the only justifiable reason would be to maintain/improve the system they'd have to admit that the current funding was insufficient to keep it in good condition. Since this would be the whole point of doing it, they would have to admit this as a necessary step to getting the increased funding.

 

It's becoming increasingly obvious that CaRT have to do *something* drastic to keep the canal system in good order, and anyone objecting to an increase in the license fee should consider the other options they might consider to balance the books -- things like closing down parts of the system, selling parts off to the private sector (who would then charge boats for access/mooring like the Bridgewater does), starting to charge (a lot!) for things like water points and sewage/refuse disposal.

 

Most reasonable people might say that a higher license fee is by far the best option... ?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

Can you explain the "non-operational assets" comment?

 

Jus a small example from their own accounts package - they are becoming a big player in building residential properties :

 

Creating high-quality waterside spaces
During the year, we continued to push
forward our ambitions to create high-quality
places next to our waterways to encourage
more people to use and enjoy these spaces
with significant achievements on several
major development schemes:


• Completion of Phase 2 of the Brentford
residential scheme in West London, part
of our Waterside Places joint venture
with Muse Developments


• Completion of our residential scheme
at Bow Wharf, in East London, and new
industrial units at Tyseley, Birmingham,
part of our H2O Urban joint venture
with bloc


• Start of work on a residential
scheme at Hale Wharf, East London,
by Waterside Places


• H2O Urban commenced work on
a hotel/industrial development at
Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

 

• Delivery of the first houses as part of
our joint venture with Birmingham City
Council, Urban Splash and Places for
People to transform Icknield Port Loop,
a rundown former industrial site


• Start of the restoration of the
Roundhouse in Birmingham, in
partnership with the National Trust


We were also pleased to receive a number
of planning permissions to continue our
transformation work including at Brentford
(Phase 3), Bulbourne Yard and at Finsley
Gate Wharf in Burnley which will deliver a
leisure, education and community attraction,
largely funded by the National Lottery
Heritage Fund.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Jus a small example from their own accounts package - they are becoming a big player in building residential properties :

 

Creating high-quality waterside spaces
During the year, we continued to push
forward our ambitions to create high-quality
places next to our waterways to encourage
more people to use and enjoy these spaces
with significant achievements on several
major development schemes:


• Completion of Phase 2 of the Brentford
residential scheme in West London, part
of our Waterside Places joint venture
with Muse Developments


• Completion of our residential scheme
at Bow Wharf, in East London, and new
industrial units at Tyseley, Birmingham,
part of our H2O Urban joint venture
with bloc


• Start of work on a residential
scheme at Hale Wharf, East London,
by Waterside Places


• H2O Urban commenced work on
a hotel/industrial development at
Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

 

• Delivery of the first houses as part of
our joint venture with Birmingham City
Council, Urban Splash and Places for
People to transform Icknield Port Loop,
a rundown former industrial site


• Start of the restoration of the
Roundhouse in Birmingham, in
partnership with the National Trust


We were also pleased to receive a number
of planning permissions to continue our
transformation work including at Brentford
(Phase 3), Bulbourne Yard and at Finsley
Gate Wharf in Burnley which will deliver a
leisure, education and community attraction,
largely funded by the National Lottery
Heritage Fund.

And if things like the residential schemes make more profit for CaRT to invest back into the canals, what's the problem?

 

It's not an either/or, CaRT can raise money to invest in things like property which bring in a return from sources which wouldn't directly fund maintenance.

 

So long as they do this sensibly it provides more revenue for the canals, not less. It's only if they do what some councils have done and borrow vast amounts to fund speculative developments and office space that it could all go wrong, but I don't see any evidence of them doing this.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Perhaps instead of asking me "what is your solution", boatera should be questioning  why those that represent them are not asking these awkward questions.

Who with any teeth represent us?
Apart from the NBTA I don't hear any loud voices, and the NBTA don't represent the majority of boaters.

Well done Allan(nb Albert) you certainly seem ask the questions that aren't being asked by our so called 'representatives'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Jus a small example from their own accounts package - they are becoming a big player in building residential properties :

 

Creating high-quality waterside spaces
During the year, we continued to push
forward our ambitions to create high-quality
places next to our waterways to encourage
more people to use and enjoy these spaces
with significant achievements on several
major development schemes:


• Completion of Phase 2 of the Brentford
residential scheme in West London, part
of our Waterside Places joint venture
with Muse Developments


• Completion of our residential scheme
at Bow Wharf, in East London, and new
industrial units at Tyseley, Birmingham,
part of our H2O Urban joint venture
with bloc


• Start of work on a residential
scheme at Hale Wharf, East London,
by Waterside Places


• H2O Urban commenced work on
a hotel/industrial development at
Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

 

• Delivery of the first houses as part of
our joint venture with Birmingham City
Council, Urban Splash and Places for
People to transform Icknield Port Loop,
a rundown former industrial site


• Start of the restoration of the
Roundhouse in Birmingham, in
partnership with the National Trust


We were also pleased to receive a number
of planning permissions to continue our
transformation work including at Brentford
(Phase 3), Bulbourne Yard and at Finsley
Gate Wharf in Burnley which will deliver a
leisure, education and community attraction,
largely funded by the National Lottery
Heritage Fund.

I am happy that they are doing this, clearly a larger income stream is required to maintain the canals, I think that if the license went up too much many would leave the waterways, they would point at comments like Ians and say I'm alright Jack! you have plenty and want gentrification of the waterways. Whether they are right or not plenty of boaters are on the breadline and cannot afford anymore money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.