Jump to content

Canal & River Trust publishes its 2021/22 Annual Report


Ray T

Featured Posts

CRT Press Release

 

28th September 2022

Canal & River Trust publishes its 2021/22 Annual Report

The Canal & River Trust has today (28 September 2022) published its 2021/22 Annual Report & Accounts, the second year to be severely affected by Covid-19.  The Report documents a continued rise in use of the towpath with nearly 800 million individual visits across the year and a record summer for boating once the waterways were able to re-open in May 2021 for unrestricted navigation.

 

Accounting for variances relating to the pandemic, income for the year remained broadly stable and the Trust was able to increase the amount spent on core maintenance and repair works to keep the network open, safe and navigable.

 

In a year that saw both drought and further winter storm damage, once again bringing additional unplanned and costly works, the Report highlights the increasing impacts of climate change and how, with continued support and funding, the Trust’s 250-year-old network is helping to address the national crises in public health, biodiversity and the climate emergency.

 

Richard Parry, chief executive of the Canal & River Trust, comments: “In a year severely affected by the pandemic, the Trust has demonstrated its resilience to the challenges faced and continued to provide opportunities for the nine million people who have waterways on their doorstep, to experience the wellbeing benefits they offer.

 

“With the threat of climate change, we must continue to focus funding and resources on increasing the resilience of the canal network and our core purpose of keeping the waterways safe, attractive, accessible and available, for boating and the wide range of other users.  In doing so, we can help Britain mitigate the effects of a changing climate, from helping to cool cities in summer, to providing low-carbon energy to heat homes in winter and as sustainable transport traffic-free routes through our towns and cities.”

 

Over 160 large-scale works were completed across the year, including repairing masonry and brickwork, fixing leaks, updating and installing hydraulics and electrics, and fitting 132 lock gate leaves handcrafted at the Trust’s specialist workshops.  However, the Trust’s largest spend on infrastructure in 2021/22 was again on its high-risk reservoirs, the oldest in the country, continuing a programme of additional works over the decade to minimise any threat to public safety and to safeguard the vital canal water supply that the reservoirs provide. 

 

The Report also looks ahead to the review of the Government grant, due to complete in 2022/23, for the period beyond 2027 when the current Grant Agreement comes to an end.

 

Richard Parry continues: “Our waterways provide accessible and attractive space for millions of people, often in some of the most deprived communities, supporting government policy to enhance health, wellbeing and prosperity.  No other UK charity brings so much free blue and green space to the doorsteps of so many.

 

“As the cost of looking after our ageing network continues to rise, the sustainable long-term future of our waterways depends on building broad support and maintaining our partnership with Government, to secure the funding that is essential to address their long-term resilience and avert their decline.  With our grant declining significantly in real terms over the next few years, the current Government review of our future funding provides the opportunity to demonstrate the substantial benefits that waterways bring, as well as the wider public risks associated with our ageing and vulnerable network.”

 

Volunteering, an integral part of the Trust’s resource which was largely curtailed during the pandemic, recovered well following the easing of government lockdown restrictions and this continues.  The work of volunteers and partner organisations is central to the Trust’s community engagement initiatives, biodiversity improvements and the further attainment of Green Flag Awards which now cover over a quarter of the network.

 

Richard concludes: “As the charity that believes in making life better by water, we work with communities to transform their local waterways.  The ongoing support we’ve received has enabled us to increase this work and to encourage participation in our activities.  We appreciate all the effort and dedication through the past year, without which we could not have delivered on the scale that has been achieved.”

 

To view the Trust’s 2021/22 Annual Report & Accounts visit: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts.

 

This year the Trust’s Annual Public Meeting will be hosted online on 12 October at 12 noon with people able to view and submit questions. Further details are available on the Trust’s website.

 

ENDS

For further information, please contact:

Jonathan Ludford, Canal & River Trust

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I wonder why David Orr, CRT's new chair, has not signed the 2021/22 Annual Report on behalf of the Board of Trustees?


 

 

4 hours ago, matty40s said:

Is this the preliminary Orr 1st Orr 2nd Orr Revised edition??

 

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to see that C&RT has not learned their lesson re the cost of raisng donations.

 

Despite the donations income falling from £7.7m (2021) to £6.5 (2022) they spent an additional £3.6m more than in 2021 to raise less funds

 

 

Number of (employess) accidents increasing.

Number of visitor accidents increasing

Friends actively donating falling

Visitor satisfaction falling

Employee engagement falling 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I wonder why David Orr, CRT's new chair, has not signed the 2021/22 Annual Report on behalf of the Board of Trustees?


 

"Keeping the waterways open to navigation for more than 35,000 boaters is a key priority for the Trust" ...... however we failed miserably, particularly in the north.

 

Perhaps he didn't buy that 

Edited by Midnight
  • Love 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Midnight said:

"Keeping the waterways open to navigation for more than 35,000 boaters is a key priority for the Trust" ...... however we failed miserably, particularly in the north.

 

Perhaps he didn't buy that 

Not sure what is the difference between key priority and just ordinary priority, either way it's a failure (see stoppages map north of Manchester) I don't blame the CRT for lack of rain or stoppages, planned and unplanned, either way, the waterways are not open to navigation. I think they should be banging on this drum in order to ask  for more government cash. If poor maintenance is not due to lack of resources it must be due to poor management.

I don't mind if CRT lose the contract I expect to see the same sort of set up and probably the same sort of engineering skills required by their replacement. The government want to bang the wellness drum, and Parry has probably delivered on that, 800,000 can't be wrong!

I'm not going to bring UK taxpayers in to this.......

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Not sure what is the difference between key priority and just ordinary priority, either way it's a failure (see stoppages map north of Manchester) I don't blame the CRT for lack of rain or stoppages, planned and unplanned, either way, the waterways are not open to navigation. I think they should be banging on this drum in order to ask  for more government cash. If poor maintenance is not due to lack of resources it must be due to poor management.

I don't mind if CRT lose the contract I expect to see the same sort of set up and probably the same sort of engineering skills required by their replacement. The government want to bang the wellness drum, and Parry has probably delivered on that, 800,000 can't be wrong!

I'm not going to bring UK taxpayers in to this.......

 

You say 800,000 can't be be wrong. Unfortunately, it almost certainly is.


Since 2002/03, Estimates on visitor numbers have been based on a rolling survey which starts by asking if you have visited an inland waterway in the last two weeks. This gives the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) of "visits per average two week period".

A positive response to the initial question results in further questions, "how manny times did you visit", "what was the purpose of the visit" etc..

The three Annual Reports prior to 2019/20 show that the baseline KPI was in decline. The Annual Reports for 2019/20 (both approved and falsified) show that the baseline KPI more than doubled over the previous year. The explanation in the report is rather unconvincing.

Based on CRT's whistleblower's allegation that they routinely falsify information included in Annual Reports (rather than after they have been approved), I took a look at all the KPI's in that report.

My view is that that the figure was falsified by changing the way that survey results are converted to the KPI. The probability is that CRT wished to draw DEFRA's attention that visitor numbers were in decline.

Does anyone actually believe that baseline visitors increased from 4.1m to 9.2m in a year?



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You say 800,000 can't be be wrong. Unfortunately, it almost certainly is.


Since 2002/03, Estimates on visitor numbers have been based on a rolling survey which starts by asking if you have visited an inland waterway in the last two weeks. This gives the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) of "visits per average two week period".

A positive response to the initial question results in further questions, "how manny times did you visit", "what was the purpose of the visit" etc..

The three Annual Reports prior to 2019/20 show that the baseline KPI was in decline. The Annual Reports for 2019/20 (both approved and falsified) show that the baseline KPI more than doubled over the previous year. The explanation in the report is rather unconvincing.

Does anyone actually believe that baseline visitors increased from 4.1m to 9.2m in a year?



 

It's not impossible if there was a COVID involvement, but that would show up as an anomaly.

Any adjustment to surveys should be identified, if this baseline number has increased, then any deviation or even levelling will need to be explained. Anyway it's all very dubious as you say.

Whistleblowers for an fairly insignificant organisation like CRT sounds more like disgruntled (former) employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

Whistleblowers for an fairly insignificant organisation like CRT sounds more like disgruntled (former) employee.

Remember a few of CRT employees are also boaters and have the same views as some of us on here. They will see what is happening against what is being said and feel its wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

It's not impossible if there was a COVID involvement, but that would show up as an anomaly.

Any adjustment to surveys should be identified, if this baseline number has increased, then any deviation or even levelling will need to be explained. Anyway it's all very dubious as you say.

Whistleblowers for an fairly insignificant organisation like CRT sounds more like disgruntled (former) employee.

This is 2019/20. COVID restrictions started just two weeks before CRT's year end.

 

The whistleblower was employed by CRT at the time they contacted me so not a former employee.  They were fearful that taking up the matter via CRT's internal whistleblowing proceedure or via the Charity Commission asking to remain anonymous would lead to getting sacked. They claimed that this had already happened to an employee.

Whilst I have been unable to check out the "sacking for speaking out claim", I have been in contact with CRT regarding its whistleblowing proceedure. I found that two out of three people on the committee that investigates whistleblower complaints were named by CRT trustees as involved in altering the report.

 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Remember a few of CRT employees are also boaters and have the same views as some of us on here. They will see what is happening against what is being said and feel its wrong. 

They are risking losing their jobs, hardly a worthwhile exercise.

Most management massage outcomes. Just read the PM s press releases this week.

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LadyG said:

Not sure what is the difference between key priority and just ordinary priority, either way it's a failure (see stoppages map north of Manchester) I don't blame the CRT for lack of rain or stoppages, planned and unplanned, either way, the waterways are not open to navigation. I think they should be banging on this drum in order to ask  for more government cash. If poor maintenance is not due to lack of resources it must be due to poor management.

I don't mind if CRT lose the contract I expect to see the same sort of set up and probably the same sort of engineering skills required by their replacement. The government want to bang the wellness drum, and Parry has probably delivered on that, 800,000 can't be wrong!

I'm not going to bring UK taxpayers in to this.......

 

I'm not sure the government has any spare change right now. Especially to throw at a niche, insignificant sector  Then again, who knows what they might coose to do?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ianws said:

I'm not sure the government has any spare change right now. Especially to throw at a niche, insignificant sector  Then again, who knows what they might coose to do?

With government having already decided not to provide extra funding for post Toddbrook safety critical work over the next five years, it is difficult to see anything other than zero funding after 2027.

 

It can be seen as a win for government who will have managed to shift the cost of the waterways to the third sector.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Since 2002/03, Estimates on visitor numbers have been based on a rolling survey which starts by asking if you have visited an inland waterway in the last two weeks. This gives the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) of "visits per average two week period".

This is extremely vague and requires those being surveyed to understand what 'an inland waterway' is (Lake Windermere or the local park lake perhaps?). And how do they know if it's a CRT managed one? Perhaps this is the reason for all those bloody signs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orwellian said:

This is extremely vague and requires those being surveyed to understand what 'an inland waterway' is (Lake Windermere or the local park lake perhaps?). And how do they know if it's a CRT managed one? Perhaps this is the reason for all those bloody signs?

A further question determines if the waterway is one managed by CRT -

Quote

Q1 Firstly, I am going to read out some activities that you may have taken part in recently. For each one, can you tell me whether you personally have taken part in this activity in Britain within the past two weeks? So firstly, have you……[rotate activity list]…. on a stretch of inland water which is used by boats, for example a canal, river or lake.
1. Been on a boat with an engine
2. Been on a boat without an engine? Please include activities such as canoeing, rowing boats and sailing boats
3. Been fishing
4. Been cycling
5. Walked a dog
6. Visited a specific attraction, heritage attraction or museum
7. Taken a walk or a ramble for leisure
8. Taken a run or jog for leisure
9. Used or walked along only in order to get somewhere else? For example, to get to work or to go shopping
10. Bought food or drink in a pub
11. Just sat or stood by the water as a break in the day to relax (always penultimate activity)
12. Used or visited for some other purpose? (SPECIFY)

Q2. [For each activity at Q1] On how many days in the past two weeks have you personally……[read out activity]….on a stretch of inland water used by boats, for example, a river, canal or lake in Britain?
WRITE IN NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN 1 AND 14.

Q3. [For each activity at Q1] And thinking about the last day you have……[read out activity]….which river, canal or lake did you do this on?
RECORD ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) Name of Waterway (if known):
b) Nearest Town / Village:
c) Name of County:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm even more confused by this lake business,what has that to do with the price of fish!

?

are they asking if respondent has done any leisure activity, other than horse riding or archery (!) perhaps,  near water, excluding seaside  or reservoirs, or including reservoirs used for dinghy sailing? No mention of CRT as far as I can see, so how is 'awareness/wellness" being measured?

Been to a pub, but not a cafe, a museum but not an art gallery?

 

 

 

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that addition info. I suppose it is trying to ensure they capture relevant data but some elements seem to me to potentially artificially inflate the numbers.

For instance item 6 in Q1. If that was a CRT owned facility - eg National Waterways Museum - I would think it legitimate to count visitors to it. But nowhere does it ask who owns the attraction. Q2 aims to eliminate data relating to non CRT waterways, but what about anyone visiting The Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds for example? This is a major attraction that does not rely on the adjacent CRT waterway to attract visitors, but the methodology outlined above

suggests they will be claimed by CRT. This is unreasonable. There must be many similar attractions around the CRT network where such visitors should not be claimed by CRT. Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Thanks for that addition info. I suppose it is trying to ensure they capture relevant data but some elements seem to me to potentially artificially inflate the numbers.

For instance item 6 in Q1. If that was a CRT owned facility - eg National Waterways Museum - I would think it legitimate to count visitors to it. But nowhere does it ask who owns the attraction. Q2 aims to eliminate data relating to non CRT waterways, but what about anyone visiting The Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds for example? This is a major attraction that does not rely on the adjacent CRT waterway to attract visitors, but the methodology outlined above

suggests they will be claimed by CRT. This is unreasonable. There must be many similar attractions around the CRT network where such visitors should not be claimed by CRT. Or am I missing something?

I would agree re Q6 and can think of others. 

Not sure that it would distort the figure too much and may even be taken into account when the sample data is extrapolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Thanks for that addition info. I suppose it is trying to ensure they capture relevant data but some elements seem to me to potentially artificially inflate the numbers.

For instance item 6 in Q1. If that was a CRT owned facility - eg National Waterways Museum - I would think it legitimate to count visitors to it. But nowhere does it ask who owns the attraction. Q2 aims to eliminate data relating to non CRT waterways, but what about anyone visiting The Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds for example? This is a major attraction that does not rely on the adjacent CRT waterway to attract visitors, but the methodology outlined above

suggests they will be claimed by CRT. This is unreasonable. There must be many similar attractions around the CRT network where such visitors should not be claimed by CRT. Or am I missing something?

I would have used my boat to visit the Royal Armouries, (it was closed due to COVID, and now the L&L is closed), so I can see some CRT  involvement, but that is just me as a boater it's not me as a standard survey respondent.

Before Narrow Boating I'd never been near a canal, navigable river, or any lakes for years I'd say almost any recreation is good for wellbeing, so really gross numbers using towpath are what really matters.

I suppose I might visit a museum which is close to a waterway, eg The Calderdale Industrial Museum, but I'm not sure I would think about mentioning that aspect if I was responding to a survey.

Edited by LadyG
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.