Jump to content

David Orr CBE proposed for appointment as next Canal & River Trust chair


Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

Surely you should support the selling off of heritage buildings. If you say they don't repair the waterway itself then they are unlikely to look after adjacent heritage buildings.

I have a lot of sympathy with that idea. Let someone who will care for them have them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Surely you should support the selling off of heritage buildings. If you say they don't repair the waterway itself then they are unlikely to look after adjacent heritage buildings.

I'm not complaining about selling off heritage buildings, it must depend on individual cases, but I had some idea that part of the CRT responsibility was to look after these things. They might be able to harvest grants and funding for buildings but not for general maintenance, as they do for things like cycle tracks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/08/2022 at 08:26, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Yes we have all noticed the transformation to "fix on fail". 

I'm not clear that this is a critical time in the development of the CRT, perhaps I misread that. A cynic can pick holes in every sentence, but that is how great leadership skills are developed, not by litter picking on canalside walks, daily or otherwise.

Best thing is to elect someone with the ability to squeeze funding from UK government, let's hope he knows the problem. Underfunding.

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I'm not complaining about selling off heritage buildings, it must depend on individual cases, but I had some idea that part of the CRT responsibility was to look after these things. They might be able to harvest grants and funding for buildings but not for general maintenance, as they do for things like cycle tracks.

 

It certainly came across as a complaint. Grants can be available if buildings are listed for example, but many are not and in all cases they only top up what are very expensive and risky projects. A large number of BW/CRT owned heritage buildings have, since the 1970s, been restored and brought back to use by disposing of them to individuals and organisations who brought their own capital and expertise and successfully restored them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Best thing is to elect someone with the ability to squeeze funding from UK government, let's hope he knows the problem. Underfunding.

 

This is a misunderstanding. Understandable that you would misunderstand, being a boater.

 

The problem is the easing of the canals from being a navigation into being linear waterside leisure parks. As global pressure increases to get rid of diesel engines it suits CRT just fine to run with this and get rid of boats too, in the long term. Once the boats are gone, the canals will be so much cheaper and easier to maintain when they only need to be deep enough for canoes and ducks.

 

This is the transition I imagine the new boy will be expected to manage.

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

This is a misunderstanding. Understandable that you would misunderstand, being a boater.

 

The problem is the easing of the canals from being a navigation into being linear waterside leisure parks. As global pressure increases to get rid of diesel engines it suits CRT just fine to run with this and get rid of boats too, in the long term. Once the boats are gone, the canals will be so much cheaper and easier to maintain when they only need to be deep enough for canoes and ducks.

 

This is the transition I imagine the new boy will be expected to manage.

 

 

 

 

Many a true word ..............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Many a true word ..............................

 

I wasn't jesting, this is my perception of what will happen and is happening. 

 

Boaters make such a pain in the arse of themselves that the outcome I described will suit just about everyone except the boaters themselves. 

 

This is also why CRT shows no signs of supporting a transition to electrically powered boats with plans for charging points etc. They don't want powered boats of any description in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I wasn't jesting, this is my perception of what will happen and is happening. 

 

Boaters make such a pain in the arse of themselves that the outcome I described will suit just about everyone except the boaters themselves. 

 

This is also why CRT shows no signs of supporting a transition to electrically powered boats with plans for charging points etc. They don't want powered boats of any description in the long term.

I don't have a boat anymore so what happens with the canals does not affect me particularly. Having said that I am still involved with canals as an educational volunteer so I would not like to see the canals being destroyed by a lack of maintenance or for any other reason. what MtB says is absolutely true and I saw that coming a long time ago. I believe that CRT would love to get rid of boats on their canals and, in my opinion, the only thing stopping them doing just that at the moment is the fact that there are 35000 or so people living on the canals. Oky that figure may be wrong and I certainly haven't fact checked it BUT however many people there are actually living on the canals in boats it is far too many to just kick them all off and, again in my opinion, that is the only saving grace the canals have at this point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pete.i said:

I don't have a boat anymore so what happens with the canals does not affect me particularly. Having said that I am still involved with canals as an educational volunteer so I would not like to see the canals being destroyed by a lack of maintenance or for any other reason. what MtB says is absolutely true and I saw that coming a long time ago. I believe that CRT would love to get rid of boats on their canals and, in my opinion, the only thing stopping them doing just that at the moment is the fact that there are 35000 or so people living on the canals. Oky that figure may be wrong and I certainly haven't fact checked it BUT however many people there are actually living on the canals in boats it is far too many to just kick them all off and, again in my opinion, that is the only saving grace the canals have at this point in time.

I thought there were three thousand liveaboard boats, if each has ten people , there must be something in the water.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I thought there were three thousand liveaboard boats, if each has ten people , there must be something in the water.

 

I suspect the 3,000 might be boat licenses without an home mooring.

 

I'm not sure how anyone would know truly how many live aboard, given when I lived aboard neither CRT nor any other government agency had any idea. A good but unknown proportion of boaters live aboard on CRT home leisure moorings or in marinas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

I suspect the 3,000 might be boat licenses without an home mooring.

 

I'm not sure how anyone would know truly how many live aboard, given when I lived aboard neither CRT nor any other government agency had any idea. A good but unknown proportion of boaters live aboard on CRT home leisure moorings or in marinas.

 

Maybe the Boaters Census will ask these awkward questions, or maybe better let sleeping dogs lie.

I've not been asked to fill in a census, I just know I'll be very careful answering questions skewed to put CRT management in to bonus territory. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I suspect the 3,000 might be boat licenses without an home mooring.

 

I'm not sure how anyone would know truly how many live aboard, given when I lived aboard neither CRT nor any other government agency had any idea. A good but unknown proportion of boaters live aboard on CRT home leisure moorings or in marinas.

 

Screenshot_20220807-095548_Chrome.jpg.21d90eeeb7ac3d9f761e696eaaab35f5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Orwellian said:

It certainly came across as a complaint. Grants can be available if buildings are listed for example, but many are not and in all cases they only top up what are very expensive and risky projects. A large number of BW/CRT owned heritage buildings have, since the 1970s, been restored and brought back to use by disposing of them to individuals and organisations who brought their own capital and expertise and successfully restored them.

A bit like old boat being given to museums. People who pay hard cash for them tend to look after them, there is one exception of course who leaves boats sunk around the system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I suspect the 3,000 might be boat licenses without an home mooring.

 

 

 

Unless things have changed dramatically, the number usually quoted is much greater than 3000.  I suspect nearly twice that might be nearer the mark, but I'm somewhat out of touch on such matters now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Unless things have changed dramatically, the number usually quoted is much greater than 3000.  I suspect nearly twice that might be nearer the mark, but I'm somewhat out of touch on such matters now.

 

 

I was simply quoting the figure of 3,000 given to us a post or two earlier by LadyG.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I was simply quoting the figure of 3,000 given to us a post or two earlier by LadyG.

 

Fair enough.  Irrespective of whether we are referring to boats without a home mooring, or liveaboard boats, I think LadyG is incorrect

 

A 3000 number is simply far too low for either, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Fair enough.  Irrespective of whether we are referring to boats without a home mooring, or liveaboard boats, I think LadyG is incorrect

 

A 3000 number is simply far too low for either, I think.

I put the number up as a starting point for discussion, the figure of three thousand just popped in to my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LadyG said:

I thought there were three thousand liveaboard boats, if each has ten people , there must be something in the water.

it depends on which part of Google you read but the figures bandied about are between 15,000 and the NBTA's estimate of 50,000 people living on boats. In March last year there were 35,000 people with boat licences and around 38,000 boats. Obviously these figures are acknowledged to change as people take to the water to offset high housing costs etc. Again these are just figures that I have puilled off the web and I, most certainly, have not verified any of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think that is the thinking behind why old cars do not require an MOT, if you are keen enough to keep an old car running then you'll probably keep it roadworthy.

I thought it was because they would fail 95% of the check point, from brakes to emissions via seat belts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LadyG said:

I can't imagine the CRT canals are the finest heritage example of industrial heritage in the world. 

They are falling to bits and lots of the industrial heritage buildings have been sold off.

I suspect that claim is justified on the size of the connected system and number of listed structures. 

 

Regarding heritage buildings, CRT has a charitable duty to conserve and protect these just as it has a duty to conserve and protect its waterways such that they are available for navigation. 

 

It is probable most of the non operational buildings that have been sold by CRT were bringing an income greater than the cost of maintaining them. No doubt CRT thinks that by selling -

 

- the proceeds of the sale can be invested elsewhere for higher income

- CRT is relieved of the financial cost of maintaining them

 

It is worth noting one of the two falsifications in 2029/20 annual report. The falsification was used to hide a significant fall in heritage condition. CRT's outgoing chair, Allan Leighton, wrote to the Secretary of State informing him that that a heritage score was not available despite having signed an annual report which contained the actual figure. 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Horror 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.