Enough is enough!

[Col_T]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

Rather than mothballing restored canals of which hard work has been put in to restore them, would a better idea be to charge a toll to use the ones which are currently costly to maintain (maybe only for visiting boats), like the trans-Pennine canals?

 

"would it be a better idea " - nope. The concept of discretionary spend kicks in. A boater may chose to spend on the upkeep of the boat, but decide not to pay a toll to visit a canal that is costly to maintain. If you're going to charge for usage, charge for usage of the whole system, so that boaters don't have the choice of pay / not pay.

 

Once that idea is accepted, the easiest way is to increase the license fee, that all boaters should already be paying.

 

As for mothballing a specific canal, allow CaRT to mothball one and you've set the precedent for them to mothball any canal for whatever reason they dare publish. "The thin end of the wedge" springs to mind.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Col_T

[Stroudwater1]

Surely other users of the canals have they part to pay too- Cyclists do seem to cause damage to towpaths which need more works. Perhaps a £1 charge per ride would be a thought. 

 

 What about a Gongoozler charge? £10 per error witnessed would do the trick 

 

[Tony1]

22 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Surely other users of the canals have they part to pay too- Cyclists do seem to cause damage to towpaths which need more works. Perhaps a £1 charge per ride would be a thought. 

 

 What about a Gongoozler charge? £10 per error witnessed would do the trick 

 

 

 

If the 'goozlers had had to cough up a tenner every time they witnessed my cockups, my performance in the first week or two as I cruised up the Nene would have bankrupted half of Cambridgeshire. 

I will say however, the comical nature of my incompetence would have at least provided value for money.

 

And things have not improved hugely. Even a year later, I feel I would provide a fairly decent income stream for CRT.

So distracted was I by gongoozlers at my very first lift bridge on the Llangollen, and so determined to impress them with my manly prowess, that I actually moored on the towpath side, crossed over the bridge, and then started to raise it- getting it halfway up before realising I had cut myself off from my boat. 

 

My face alone was worth a tenner, as the assembled gongoozlers looked on in high amusement. 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Tony1

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Surely other users of the canals have they part to pay too- Cyclists do seem to cause damage to towpaths which need more works. Perhaps a £1 charge per ride would be a thought. 

 

 What about a Gongoozler charge? £10 per error witnessed would do the trick 

 

 

One of the conditions of transfer from Government ownership to C&RTs ownership was that they were not allowed to charge for any access to the towpath and that it must remain open for public use.

 

Trust Settlement Agreement 

Section 2:4:3

 

You may find reading the paperwork that resulted in the formation of C&RT educational.

 

Their Articles of Association is a 42 page document and lists what they can and cannot do, and their aims and objectives.

The Grant Agreement between DEFRA and C&RT (47 pages) outlining C&RTS KPIs and how the grant will be taken away from them if they fail to achieve the KPIs.

The Trust Settlement (24 pages) detailing what BW were handing over to C&RT and what C&RT was allowed to do with it, and not do with it.

[Midnight]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The Grant Agreement between DEFRA and C&RT (47 pages) outlining C&RTS KPIs and how the grant will be taken away from them if they fail to achieve the KPIs.

 

My understanding is that they have failed to achieve the KPIs. Will DEFRA look for an alternative organisation to manage the waterways or just leave them (CRT and the waterways) to rot?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

My understanding is that they have failed to achieve the KPIs. Will DEFRA look for an alternative organisation to manage the waterways or just leave them (CRT and the waterways) to rot?

 

I would like to know how many former BW managers transfered to CRT before commenting, but.

 

Most  I bet, under employment legislation. If the running of the waterways transfers to another organisation it will just repeat. You will end up with the same people, but with a different logo and branding.

 

(Though Parry may have gone with a very nice package).

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, Midnight said:

My understanding is that they have failed to achieve the KPIs.

 

Yes they have, despite some very 'creative accounting' - for example - they have to show an increase of visitors to the waterways, this is why the figure quoted steadily rose until is quoted 400,000,000 vists per annum. The figure is now more realistic as "we have revised our method of counting".

 

The figures that C&RT have quoted in their report to Defra have turned out to be different to the figures shown in the initial accounts package, and which although signed off were again changed and the accounts filed at companies house are not the accounts that were 'signed off' as correct.

 

There is something very rotten at "C&RT Towers"

 

GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS AND CANAL & RIVER TRUST

 

9.3

Notwithstanding the regular content and cycle of Review Meetings, in the financial year 2021/22 a review will take place to consider whether, and if so, the extent to which there is a case to continue to support by Grant the public benefits (including, but not by way of limitation, provision of land drainage, flood mitigation and other public safety benefits) provided by the waterways under CRT’s stewardship beyond the end of the Grant Period. The 2021/22 Review shall take into account, among other matters, CRT’s performance of its obligations arising under the Grant Agreement. Defra shall issue a report setting out the conclusions of this review with regard to continued support of CRT by Grant beyond the term of this Grant Agreement on or before 1 July 2022

 

 

C&RTs KPI's ( you will note that whilst there are 3 KPIs relating to the towpaths, there are non specifically relating to 'navigation' and keeping the canal system 'open')

 

 

 

 

*** “NSS” means the National Stewardship Score, which is an indicator agreed from time to time with Defra which is intended to provide an outcome measure of the overall state and functionality of the waterways and the public benefit delivered.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[matty40s]

19 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I would like to know how many former BW managers transfered to CRT before commenting, but.

 

Most  I bet, under employment legislation. If the running of the waterways transfers to another organisation it will just repeat.

All of the managers would have transferred under TUPE (or whatever it is termed as now), unless they took redundancy packages.

The main culprits however, saw a good opportunity in getting moved to BWML and sold off enjoying the gravy train to the fullest extent.

Next to go will be the "Waterside Moorings", so lovingly named and given it's own website by CRT. They have already been throwing their weight around with long term moorers in some locations, preparing the ground for an asset sale of managed moorings en masse.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, matty40s said:

All of the managers would have transferred under TUPE (or whatever it is termed as now), unless they took redundancy packages.

The main culprits however, saw a good opportunity in getting moved to BWML and sold off enjoying the gravy train to the fullest extent.

Next to go will be the "Waterside Moorings", so lovingly named and given it's own website by CRT. They have already been throwing their weight around with long term moorers in some locations, preparing the ground for an asset sale of managed moorings en masse.

 

Seemingly it is still refered to as TUPE.

 

I couldnt initially recall the acronym despite being subject to it multiple times over many years.

 

Did it mean a better service for our patients?

 

Probably not.

[matty40s]

More on Waterside Moorings.....some people have lived on these for many years...have built a nice life and pleasant home vista.

Lately, their new moorings managers have been visiting sites(a new phenomena), and instructing the moorers that nothing fixed should be on the mooring , no decking, solar arrays, sheds, etc.

This is after a new T&C earlier in the year stating nothing at all should project over the canal bank(ie disabled access platform or duck ramp etc). 

When asked if this is to allow the contracted(and paid for in the moorings agreements) grounds maintenance and mowing to happen(which has not been carried out for several years), it is met by stonewalling and "not what Im here for" attitude.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Surely other users of the canals have they part to pay too- Cyclists do seem to cause damage to towpaths which need more works. Perhaps a £1 charge per ride would be a thought. 

 

 What about a Gongoozler charge? £10 per error witnessed would do the trick 

 

Seeing as how the system is still largely not paid for by boaters and fishermen, presumably the rest comes from general taxation, and so, as has been pointed out before,  walkers and cyclists pay their whack too. You could argue that boaters pay for the services (structural maintenance and facilities). Fishermen pay for fish stock.

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I would like to know how many former BW managers transfered to CRT before commenting, but.

 

Most  I bet, under employment legislation. If the running of the waterways transfers to another organisation it will just repeat. You will end up with the same people, but with a different logo and branding.

 

(Though Parry may have gone with a very nice package).

 

Getting rid of the top brass would be a start and an opportunity for a new direction. Having said that for cyclists and sign manufacturers Parry has been a huge success. For us who wonder if the local canal will stay open for more than a fortnight he's a disaster. 

[magpie patrick]

There is a basic problem which won't go away - the last set of CRT accounts gives licence revenue as £41.6m and the cost of running the waterways as £146m (I've stripped out museums, public engagement and "third party funded works" - the latter on the basis they will never come out of licence fees and the other two on the basis of not being maintenance related). 

For licences to fund this they'd have to be at least 3.5 times the price they are now - at least because many people would drop out of boating with an increase on that scale, so the same cost would end up spread across fewer boaters. And of course, £146 million is what they have spent, not how much they need to spend to tackle the backlog. 

 

The rest comes from other sources, those other sources have their own priorities which won't generally be the continued upkeep of a national navigable waterway system - that doesn't mean they won't be happy with this outcome, it's just not one they'd be paying for

 

There would be a cost to maintaining the system even if no-one used it - the Huddersfield Narrow cost something  in maintenance to have mothballed for fify odd years

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

There is a basic problem which won't go away - the last set of CRT accounts gives licence revenue as £41.6m and the cost of running the waterways as £146m (I've stripped out museums, public engagement and "third party funded works" - the latter on the basis they will never come out of licence fees and the other two on the basis of not being maintenance related). 

For licences to fund this they'd have to be at least 3.5 times the price they are now - at least because many people would drop out of boating with an increase on that scale, so the same cost would end up spread across fewer boaters. And of course, £146 million is what they have spent, not how much they need to spend to tackle the backlog. 

 

The rest comes from other sources, those other sources have their own priorities which won't generally be the continued upkeep of a national navigable waterway system - that doesn't mean they won't be happy with this outcome, it's just not one they'd be paying for

 

There would be a cost to maintaining the system even if no-one used it - the Huddersfield Narrow cost something  in maintenance to have mothballed for fify odd years

 

Significantly increasing the license is one solution but as said by others it would potentially drive many off the waterways so my not work. If CRT lose the grant where does that leave us?

 

We are probably all aware that income doesn't match expenditure. It's the solution that needs to be discussed. I mentioned one radical option I'm interested to hear your (and anyone else's) options for a solution.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Significantly increasing the license is one solution but as said by others it would potentially drive many off the waterways so my not work. If CRT lose the grant where does that leave us?

 

We are probably all aware that income doesn't match expenditure. It's the solution that needs to be discussed. I mentioned one radical option I'm interested to hear your (and anyone else's) options for a solution.

 

Would you mind mentioning your radical option again please, because I missed it. Thanks.

 

And I have a radical solution too which I will repeat for the benefit of the discussion. Raise license fees to £5k per year, per boat. Or that sort of level as that is what it costs to keep the canals available for cruising on.

[dmr]

10 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Significantly increasing the license is one solution but as said by others it would potentially drive many off the waterways so my not work. If CRT lose the grant where does that leave us?

 

We are probably all aware that income doesn't match expenditure. It's the solution that needs to be discussed. I mentioned one radical option I'm interested to hear your (and anyone else's) options for a solution.

 

If the licence went up by a factor of 2 or 3 then it would hurt but I would pay because as a liveaboard I get good value. I suspect many leisure boaters (the majority of waterways users) would sell their boats.

 

If some remoter parts of the system were mothballed (closed) then I would probably sell the boat because its the thin end of the wedge and I don't want to spend the rest of my life going round the 4 counties ring and up and down the Oxford.

 

Some of the remoter (and more expensive) parts of the system which would be on the hit list are the highlights of my boating. The Weaver, Rochdale and K&A for example.

[Lady M]

Perhaps some of the current marina moorers will keep their boats but change to continuously cruising. 

[dmr]

From reading this forum it looks like a lot of people choose a 57foot "go anywhere" boat so they could do the Northern canals "one day". So the existence of the Northern canals is a big factor in getting a boat. Maybe if the North was closed the desire to own a boat would be reduced???

[Tony1]

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Would you mind mentioning your radical option again please, because I missed it. Thanks.

 

And I have a radical solution too which I will repeat for the benefit of the discussion. Raise license fees to £5k per year, per boat. Or that sort of level as that is what it costs to keep the canals available for cruising on.

 

My suspicion- based only on my own perceptions of human behaviour- is that a £5k license would cause a loss of about 70% of boaters, and might actually cause a reduction in CRTs total license revenue, and that loss is not likely to be offset by any savings in maintenance costs, etc. 

 

I suspect there are many comfortably-off leisure boaters who keep their boats mostly in marinas, who would consider  £5k to be a deal-breaker in terms of value (when added to their marina fees), and who would reluctantly sell their boats. So if my prediction is true, some marinas would also lose business and close- perhaps lots of them.  

 

If CRT was driven by its masters to increase the license fee, then an increase to £2k would keep perhaps 80% of boats on the system, so the license revenue would be greater than it would  if the price were set at £5k. 

But let's be honest, we are all making predictions of how the boater 'market' will behave under price increases, and there is no certainty in any of our proposals.

 

My own bigger concern is the future direction that DEFRA might force the CRT to take, because as I understand it, DEFRA has no long-term interest in accommodating the practical needs of boaters. As far as they have any responsibility to people in relation to the canals, surely it is to keep them (environmentally) in a good state, but only as pleasant natural spaces for the general public to enjoy. 

For example, I bet they would be quite happy to close 70% of the locks in order to save money, and keep the waterways as a collection of separated canals, with a few showpiece boats cruising up and down the same stretches repeatedly. 

 

 

 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

I suspect there are many comfortably-off leisure boaters who keep their boats mostly in marinas, who would consider  £5k to be a deal-breaker in terms of value (when added to their marina fees), and who would reluctantly sell their boats.

 

So what do you think would happen to these 'sold' boats? Would they magically evaporate and no longer be on the water and have to pay a license fee? 

 

Granted a few would migrate to the Thames but there, mooring fees are nosebleed money. Even if a boat halves in value due to increased cost of ownership, I cannot imagine them escaping the need to pay the increased license fee unless physically scrapped. And that seems highly unlikely except in the case of the few that need scrapping anyway.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by MtB
Add a bit

[magpie patrick]

The case that is to be made is that, even without boats the canals have a cost - this was the deal maker in the 1960s. Canals must either be maintained or eliminated to remove the liabililty.

 

The way to campaign on this is for proxy-payments on behlaf of the other non-boating beneficiaries. Frome has at least two sizeable parks, we don't pay to use them but they are maintained by the town council who include maintenance in their rate precept. Bridgwater Town Council have taken this a stap further and taken on the lease of Bridgwater Docks at the end of the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. 

 

Canals also provide a water drainage and distribution function - even if no boats use them. I recently had a contractor ring from site asking where "all this blimmin water is coming from" - he'd found the Shrewsbury Canal buried half a century or more ago but still providing a drainage function even though no-one knew it. There was a cost to sorting the problem out, there always is. If the cost of providing drainage can't be extracted from the beneficiary, again proxy payments are in order. 

 

The marginal cost of maintaing the network in navigable order is nothing like £146m, that figure is the cost spent on all maintenance with no measure of what it would cost without boats. In the 1960's this was a key part of the campaign to save the canals, many of which didn't have boats. It needs to become that again. 

[Tony1]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

So what do you think would happen to these 'sold' boats? Would they magically evaporate and no longer be on the water and have to pay a license fee? 

 

Granted a few would migrate to the Thames but there, mooring fees are nosebleed money. Even if a boat halves in value due to increased cost of ownership, I cannot imagine them escaping the need to pay the increased license fee unless physically scrapped. And that seems highly unlikely except in the case of the few that need scrapping anyway.

 

 

 

Its certainly a good point. If within a space of 6 months, 70% of all the boats went up for sale, there would be chaos.

There would be a lot fewer buyers around, so boat prices would presumably collapse. 

 

People aren't going to scrap a boat that cost them say £30k, or £50k, so yes, they will hang on to the boat as long as financially possible, but they will be still be committed to selling as soon as is feasible. 

 

But none of that would be a concern for DEFRA, surely? If anything, they would be pleased with fewer boats, as it means a reduced environmental impact? 

I cant pretend to be able to predict how all events would unfold with a £5k license, but I do feel it would cause a major reduction in boat prices because of the sheer number of boats that would suddenly go up for sale. 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Tony1

[dmr]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

So what do you think would happen to these 'sold' boats? Would they magically evaporate and no longer be on the water and have to pay a license fee? 

 

Granted a few would migrate to the Thames but even if a boat halves in value due to increased cost of ownership, I cannot imagine them escaping the need to pay the increased license fee unless physically scrapped. And that seems highly unlikely except in the case of the few that need scrapping anyway.

 

The ex leisure boats will become liveaboards because that is a much more cost effective way to own a boat. Many will become "continuous moorers" in the dreaded "linear housing estate" and many will be unlicensed and the CRT enforcement process will become overwhelmed.

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Tony1 said:

People aren't going to scrap a boat that cost them say £30k, or £50k, so yes, they will hang on to the boat as long as financially possible, but they will be still be committed to selling as soon as is feasible. 

 

You're missing Mike's point Tony.

 

If a current owner sells their boat because they won't or can't pay higher fees, the buyer already knows what the fees are and will and can pay them.

 

The boat stays on the waterway, and the higher fees get paid.  It's very unlikely the new buyer wants the boat as a garden feature off the water.

 

If the market price of boats drops to compensate for higher annual costs, that doesn't affect CRT at all.

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, dmr said:

 

The ex leisure boats will become liveaboards because that is a much more cost effective way to own a boat. Many will become "continuous moorers" in the dreaded "linear housing estate" and many will be unlicensed and the CRT enforcement process will become overwhelmed.

 

Pessimistic, but not necessarily incorrect.

 

I think it's less cut and dried than that though.  More shareboats would be likely to split costs amongst a group of leisure boaters.  Maybe a trend back towards smaller boats for leisure use as many of the old guard in the IWA still talk fondly about the 24 foot cruisers they had in the past.