Jump to content

Is the CRT too woke?


Featured Posts

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Perhaps they think a different owner will conserve stuff, instead of just letting it fall to bits, festively decorated with bits of red string...

 

And on reflection, they would probably be right. 

 

Better that such buildings are in private hands and being used and looked after, than empty and degrading under CRT stewardship. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And on reflection, they would probably be right. 

 

Better that such buildings are in private hands and being used and looked after, than empty and degrading under CRT stewardship. 

The two London properties were in use and between them produced £65,000 p.a. The one in Tardebigge also produces income. It is being sold with a tenant in place.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frangar said:

I think you will find it was Graham that asked how long I had been on the cut but then went silent….I also said others had been on cut longer…but as ever you just read what suits your agenda. 

 

I went quiet because I've been busy elsewhere on a car rally, and I only asked because I was actually interested in how long you'd been involved. There was no ulterior motive.

Personally I used to walk parts of the Brecon & Mono back in the late 60's, when no-one considered that it would ever be navigable again. When I went to college in the early 70's I shared a house with two canal nuts, and helped crew both of their parents boats, and worked on a couple of WRG worksites. The first time we hired a boat was in 1977 from Anderton and did the Cheshire Ring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

 

I went quiet because I've been busy elsewhere on a car rally, and I only asked because I was actually interested in how long you'd been involved. There was no ulterior motive.

Personally I used to walk parts of the Brecon & Mono back in the late 60's, when no-one considered that it would ever be navigable again. When I went to college in the early 70's I shared a house with two canal nuts, and helped crew both of their parents boats, and worked on a couple of WRG worksites. The first time we hired a boat was in 1977 from Anderton and did the Cheshire Ring

We did the Cheshire ring in the mid 70s too and if people think it is a crumbling system now they should have been with us on that trip!  It too quite a lot of effort especially down the Rochdale nine.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, and we were lucky and managed not to pay the toll as we started down the 9 early on a Sunday morning although I seem to remember it taking a long time to do them and we had to use the boat to open some of the gates there was so much water flowing down.
Got photos somewhere.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Agreed, and we were lucky and managed not to pay the toll as we started down the 9 early on a Sunday morning although I seem to remember it taking a long time to do them and we had to use the boat to open some of the gates there was so much water flowing down.
Got photos somewhere.

We did pay the toll which I recall as being quite expensive for the times.  We had very little water and had to bring some down with us as the vandals had been at play prior to our passage.  We ran over a whole Mini Clubman at some point about halfway down and got stuck in a lock with so much rubbish in the water either side of the boat when we tries to exit with just one gate open.  It took a long day to get all the way down.

 

Those were the days!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Quite. 

 

You and your difficult questions!! 

 

That's rather the point though - CRT sold two listed properties that are not required to operate the waterways for around three times their book investment value.  The properties are still there, they are still listed so shouldn't change much and the new owners are more likely to maintain them going forwards.

 

Good on them I say.  The estates team seem quite switched on.

 

If they start flogging off locks I'll be cross but I don't see the current disposals as a bad idea. 

 

My only quibble is that they don't publicise forthcoming sales enough - I'm sure they would get better prices if they stuck a link to the auctions in their newsletter emails.

 

 

 

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

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

That's rather the point though -

 

Yes I was agreeing with you! 

 

By and large the lock cottages around here that have been sold into private hands are all loved and looked after, unlike a lot of the CRT-owned buildings I see around and under-utilised.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MtB said:

Yes I was agreeing with you! 

 

I know you were because you understand the market.  I was expanding on the point for the benefit of other readers.

 

If CRT invest the proceeds they can expect to triple the income they were receiving from these two properties and we still get to see them in the same or better condition.  

 

I don't understand the whining from some people (not you!)

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

... but these are not investment properties are they? 

 

Yes they are.  They are not core infrastructure like an aqueduct or a lock, they are interesting buildings next to a canal.

 

If CRT can roughly triple this income by flogging them and investing elsewhere then there's more money in the pot for future years.  It's a sensible thing to do.

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

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Yes they are.  They are not core infrastructure like an aqueduct or a lock, they are interesting buildings next to a canal.

 

If CRT can roughly triple this income by flogging them and investing elsewhere then there's more money in the pot for future years.  It's a sensible thing to do.

You really need to get out of the navigation authority mindset and read what CRT's wider charitable objects are. These are core infrastructure buildings that CRT is  required to "conserve and protect" just like some of its navigational assets.

It is difficult to see how they can do this by flogging them off to the highest bidder. 

When I did the sums based on CRT's current investment performance, I found that CRT could double the return not triple it. However, that is not the point and it is certainly no justification. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

These are core infrastructure buildings that CRT is  required to "conserve and protect"

 

So not lock cottages then?

 

How are they core infrastructure?

 

8 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It is difficult to see how they can do this by flogging them off to the highest bidder

 

So you now think CRT are likely to be a better custodian of a crumbling building than somebody prepared to pay a million quid to live in it?  That's unusual for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

When I did the sums based on CRT's current investment performance, I found that CRT could double the return not triple it. However, that is not the point and it is certainly no justification. 

 

Of course it is.  If CRT can uplift a £65k annual income to between £130k and £195k without affecting a heritage structure other than the ownership papers then they should do so.

 

In fact they would be in dereliction of their duty to not.

 

The building will be "conserved and protected" and there's another hundred grand or so annually in the pot to fix structures they can't sell.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the number of posts, I think someone has rather lost the plot and is blustering in an attempt to justify themselves.

 

CRT's charitable objects are -

 

Quote

 

2.1 TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, OPERATE AND MANAGE INLAND WATERWAYS FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT:

2.1.1 FOR NAVIGATION; AND

2.1.2 FOR WALKING ON TOWPATHS; AND

2.1.2 FOR RECREATION OR OTHER LEISURE-TIME PURSUITS OF THE PUBLIC IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE;

 

2.2 TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYS;

 

2.3 TO FURTHER FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THE CONSERVATION PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE OF INLAND WATERWAYS;

 

2.4 TO PROMOTE, FACILITATE, UNDERTAKE AND ASSIST IN, FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT, THE RESTORATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF INLAND WATERWAYS;

 

2.5 TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT AWARENESS, LEARNING AND EDUCATION ABOUT INLAND WATERWAYS, THEIR HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, USE, OPERATION AND CULTURAL HERITAGE BY ALL APPROPRIATE MEANS INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF MUSEUMS;

 

2.6 TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF ANY INLAND WATERWAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, IN PARTICULAR BY:

2.6.1 THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE IN SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN SUCH VICINITY; AND

2.6.2 THE PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE MEANS OF ACHIEVING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGENERATION AND THE PRUDENT USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES; AND

 

2.7 TO FURTHER ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY CHARITABLE UNDER THE LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES CONNECTED WITH INLAND WATERWAYS; PROVIDED THAT IN EACH CASE WHERE THE TRUST UNDERTAKES WORK IN RELATION TO PROPERTY WHICH IT DOES NOT OWN OR HOLD IN TRUST, ANY PRIVATE BENEFIT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS MERELY INCIDENTAL.

 

I'm sure that most would agree that CRT should not sell off its waterways in contravention of object 2.1 such that it can support object 2.2 and its other charitable objects

 

Why is it then that a few appear to be happy that property is sold in contravention of 2.2, presumably with the intention of supporting object 2.1.

 

My apologies if I have diverted this thread by giving an example of where CRT may have tried to make up a shortfall in charitable giving revenue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

2.2 TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYS;

 

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I'm sure that most would agree that CRT should not sell off its waterways in contravention of object 2.1 such that it can support object 2.2 and its other charitable objects

 

Why is it then that a few appear to be happy that property is sold in contravention of 2.2, presumably with the intention of supporting object 2.1.

 

There is a very valid argument that they are actually acknowledging that they are incapable of achieving 2.2 and feel that the buildings & infrastructure covered by 2.2 would be better conserved  and protected by others who have the competence and skills needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

CRT is  required to "conserve and protect" just like some of its navigational assets.

It is difficult to see how they can do this by flogging them off to the highest bidder. 

 

It depends what the buyer does with them. If new uses are found for old buildings, instead of just letting them rot away, it makes very little difference who owns them.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

By the number of posts, I think someone has rather lost the plot and is blustering in an attempt to justify themselves.

 

Quite, but we are used to you doing it so feel free to continue!

 

Would you care to further quote from the Articles of Association?  I'd particularly draw your attention to 3.13:

 

3. Powers

 

To further its objects the Trust may:

 

[...]

 

3.13 dispose of or deal with all or any of its property with or without payment and subject to such conditions as the Trustees think fit (in exercising this power the Trust must comply as appropriate with the Charities Act 2011);

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Quite, but we are used to you doing it so feel free to continue!

 

Would you care to further quote from the Articles of Association?  I'd particularly draw your attention to 3.13:

 

3. Powers

 

To further its objects the Trust may:

 

[...]

 

3.13 dispose of or deal with all or any of its property with or without payment and subject to such conditions as the Trustees think fit (in exercising this power the Trust must comply as appropriate with the Charities Act 2011);

 

 

There is a conflict between the above and 2.2.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Not the way I read it. "Conserve" can also be construed as "Cause to be conserved".

 

 

They've handed the conservation over to other people and they no longer can have any part in the conservation. CRT's conservation enters private hands. How much would they have to sell off, before 2.2 is no longer relevant and more 'heritage' becomes part of private ownership. How long before boaters are dealt with in a private capacity, in a similar way to the rail network, where one part runs the natural monopoly of the canal navigation only. CRT would still receive a payment, but so would the private management system on top, from boaters. 

 

Fanciful thinking, perhaps. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

By the number of posts, I think someone has rather lost the plot and is blustering in an attempt to justify themselves.

 

CRT's charitable objects are -

 

 

I'm sure that most would agree that CRT should not sell off its waterways in contravention of object 2.1 such that it can support object 2.2 and its other charitable objects

 

Why is it then that a few appear to be happy that property is sold in contravention of 2.2, presumably with the intention of supporting object 2.1.

 

My apologies if I have diverted this thread by giving an example of where CRT may have tried to make up a shortfall in charitable giving revenue. 

 

Is it your opinion that CRT should also be acquiring all buildings of historic interest etc in the vicinity of the waterways, in advance of the same objective?

 

There is no mention of the objective only applying to those owned at particular time.

 

  • Greenie 1
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.