Jump to content

Canal & River Trust publishes Boater Report 2021


Ray T

Featured Posts

PRESS RELEASE

 

4th November 2021

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST PUBLISHES BOATER REPORT 2021

 

The Canal & River Trust has published its Boater Report 2021 for the more than 35,000 leisure licence holders who use its waterways. The Report sets out how the Trust generates its income, including the four fifths of income which comes from non-boating sources, and how the money is invested in the network.

 

This year the Report highlights examples of the works the Trust carries out to keep the waterways safe and open for navigation. Despite the coronavirus pandemic, this included the completion of almost 100 major projects, on top of 282 planned repairs and 68 arising and emergency repairs. The Trust replaced 92 lock gates and spent £6.5m on dredging and £8.9m on vegetation management. 

 

The Trust’s income is derived from a variety of sources, around a quarter coming from the return on its investments, and a quarter from the annual Government grant. Boat licences and income from boating businesses play an important role, contributing around a fifth of the total, while commercial income from utilities and water development accounts for around the same amount. Income also comes from lottery funds, corporate and local authority partnerships, and donations from the public.

 

In 2020/21 the Trust’s income was broadly in line with the previous year at £215.4m (2019/20: £216.1m). This reflects the actions taken in recent years to ensure that income, vital for looking after the ageing waterways infrastructure, is secure. Whilst overall spend on charitable activities decreased year-on-year by £10.8m to £183.3m, partly the result of provisions for Toddbrook Reservoir made a year ago, underlying expenditure on core maintenance, repairs and infrastructure works continued to grow.

 

Over the past year, the Trust’s role in supporting boaters’ welfare became even more significant. The Report details some of the progress the Trust has made with statutory partners and agencies, making access to universal credit and health services easier for those living afloat, as well as expanding its safeguarding team.

 

Richard Parry, chief executive at the Canal & River Trust, comments: “In a year defined by the coronavirus pandemic, we continued to focus on the core purpose of keeping the waterways safe and accessible. We were able to increase the amount we spent on core maintenance works that keep the canals navigable for boaters and, despite the challenges of lockdown restrictions, we carried out a full winter works programme, whilst also responding to weather impacts to deliver a range of unplanned repairs.  In this Report we highlight some of the work, both planned and reactive, that our teams have carried out around the network in the past year.

 

“The pandemic hasn’t been the only challenge; in these unsettled times, the importance of our grant from government in keeping our waterways safe and available for boaters and other users is evident. The role the waterways play in providing an accessible and attractive ‘on-the-doorstep’ space for millions of people is vital in supporting government policy around health and wellbeing, greener economies and levelling up.

 

“We hope boaters find the Report useful in giving them an overview of the work we do and how the money is spent. We welcome any feedback on what readers might like to see covered in future years.”

 

The Report will be provided as a PDF which will be included as a link with licence renewals and new boat licence applications.

 

The Boater Report can be viewed here:  https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boaterreports

 

-ends-

 

For further media requests please contact:

Jonathan Ludford, Canal & River Trust

m 07747 897783 e jonathan.ludford@canalrivertrust.org.uk 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic isn't it that the continuation of the Government 'grant' is now essential when the stated purpose of transferring British Waterways into a charitable trust was to remove the cost of running the waterways from being a burden the taxpayer. That went well then! 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Ironic isn't it that the continuation of the Government 'grant' is now essential when the stated purpose of transferring British Waterways into a charitable trust was to remove the cost of running the waterways from being a burden the taxpayer. That went well then! 

 

I believe that part of the problem is the lack of actual hands-on experience of either running a successful company, or being involved in successful fund raising.

 

C&RTs annual accounts shows a depressing bit of information - They have spent £5 million more in fund raising than they have raised. ie. If they had done nothing they would have had 'Millions' more to spend, they have falsified altered their accounts filing different versions with Companies House and DEFRA and generally mismanaged their business.

C&RT have alienated their traditional customer base (boaters & moorers) and are now relying on Investment return (house ownership, etc) and the Government Grant. They have used 3rd parties to fund tow-path repairs at the expense of losing control of the tow-paths.

 

It will be interesting to see if DEFRA have been hoodwinked during this years '10 year grant review' which determines any future grant aid.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you say may well be part of the problem but in my opinion the concept was flawed from the beginning. Why on earth did Hales & Evans think that they could replace 25% of their income simply by becoming a charity? The organisations investments - mostly property - have always made a big contribution and have generally (with some notorious exceptions) been well managed but expecting donations and legacies to replace the grant was delusional.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Orwellian said:

What you say may well be part of the problem but in my opinion the concept was flawed from the beginning. Why on earth did Hales & Evans think that they could replace 25% of their income simply by becoming a charity? The organisations investments - mostly property - have always made a big contribution and have generally (with some notorious exceptions) been well managed but expecting donations and legacies to replace the grant was delusional.

They were forced into the decision by a Conservative government who wanted to off-load the funding from government figures. I did raise the almost certainty that a charity would be unable to generate sufficient money to maintain the system effectively, and his response did suggest to me that the whole thing was the result of political pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There should always be an element of government funding (locally or nationally) because our canals provide a local amenity.  90%+ of people who use the canals don't pay a penny for doing so. When CRT was first set up the intention was for it to eventually become self financed like the National Trust, but how can this ever be achieved? The National Trust can charge the public for visiting their properties and using car parks but there's no practical way that CRT can do this.

 

Some will argue that boaters pay a disproportionately low amount compared to the cost of maintaining the canals and this is true, however without boats moving about, the canals will silt up or weed over and become smelly ditches. They wouldn't be nearly as attractive a place for the general public to spend their leisure time by.

 

It annoys me sometimes to see CRT focusing so much the public rather than we boaters, but I can appreciate they have to in order to try and secure government funding in the future. I don't like it but I'd rather they do that than have to double/treble my licence and mooring fees to make up for any shortfall.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not correct. The government was sympathetic but the initiative came from BW. Don't forget the previous CEO David Fletcher advocated it previously but the then Labour government weren't interested.

My response was to Pluto just to be clear.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2021 at 10:23, Orwellian said:

That is not correct. The government was sympathetic but the initiative came from BW. Don't forget the previous CEO David Fletcher advocated it previously but the then Labour government weren't interested.

My response was to Pluto just to be clear.

You could well be right as I haven't checked any records for the time, just memories. However, I do know from my conversations with senior staff at the time that they did not like anyone suggesting that it would be unlikely for a charity to receive enough money from the public to replace government grants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2021 at 10:23, Orwellian said:

That is not correct. The government was sympathetic but the initiative came from BW. Don't forget the previous CEO David Fletcher advocated it previously but the then Labour government weren't interested.

My response was to Pluto just to be clear.

British Waterways plans to become independent of government support were documented in 2002 in "Our Plan for the Future 2003-2007". The vision was create by 2012  "an expanded, vibrant, largely self-sufficient waterway network used by twice as many people as in 2002". 


This plan was abandoned in about 2007 with the publication of a KPMG report which considered different governance models for BW but came to the conclusion that BW's funding gap (i.e. the gap between income and required expenditure) would increase over time whatever was done.

Over the 10 years, BW did increase visitor numbers but slipped back to its 2002 position.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

This plan was abandoned in about 2007 with the publication of a KPMG report which considered different governance models for BW but came to the conclusion that BW's funding gap (i.e. the gap between income and required expenditure) would increase over time whatever was done.

 

 

In the 2012 KPMG analysis, they showed that whilst the Defra grant gave ~25% of income, the forcast for 'charitable donations / giving' would only generate 8% of income.

 

There was already (2012) insufficient income to maintain a steady state of maintenace (cost of steady state maintenance ~£103m pa actual spend ~£80m pa) and when the Grant (25% of income) is finished the finances are unsustainable.

In order to achieve closer to 'steady state spending' they planned to amend the actual amount required for 'steady state' spend so that it was easier to achieve.

 

C&RT have forecast that by year 10 (2022) they will be achieving a labour cost saving in excess of £4 million per annum with the use of unpaid volunteers in lieu of employed staff.

C&RT forecast was that they would be achieving 80,000 volunteer days pa by 2021/22

 

 

 

Screenshot (295).png

Screenshot (254).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
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.