C&RT License Survey

[IanD]

Well, it seems extraordinary that the leaders of BW were so deluded about the long-term consequences of releasing an underfunded infrastructure body from a government-funded safety net, but it seems that they were... 😞

 

I'm also sure that the government was very happy to go along with them and get a potentially expensive liability off its hands after they realised they were onto a winner.

 

Now the financial chickens have come home to roost, and the losers are boaters... 😞

Edited February 26, 2023 by IanD

[Barneyp]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

Well, it seems extraordinary that the leaders of BW were so deluded about the long-term consequences of releasing an underfunded infrastructure body from a government-funded safety net, but it seems that they were... 😞

 

I'm also sure that the government was very happy to go along with them and get a potentially expensive liability off its hands after they realised they were onto a winner.

 

Now the financial chickens have come home to roost, and the losers are boaters... 😞

It seems they believed that as a charity CRT would be able to raise considerable sums, and they would have more opportunities in the commercial world if they weren't a government organisation. 

 

They seem to have been spectacularly wrong on the charitable income, and the commercial side hasn't done much better.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

36 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

The 'third man' was of course Nigel Johnson the Legal Director and I believe that after he and Evans left CRT following their 'success' they were then engaged to advise on the similar creation of what is now English Heritage. Dean Davies is still at CRT. I wonder if he's still as enthusiastic?

I always had Johnson down as the person responsible for the changes in law arising from the transfer order. 

 

Dean Davies was the blue eyed boy and penciled in for Head of Customer Services reporting direct to Richard Parry at one time. Now sidelined and responsible for direct services under Sharman. Does not seem so enthusiastic now.

[fanshaft]

4 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

It seems they believed that as a charity CRT would be able to raise considerable sums, and they would have more opportunities in the commercial world if they weren't a government organisation. 

 

They seem to have been spectacularly wrong on the charitable income, and the commercial side hasn't done much better.

They also couldn't possibly have foreseen the huge expenditure required to make the reservoirs safe and to cope with breaches such as on the Calder & Hebble.  Income from property and other services  has actually risen beyond expectations, but expenditure on maintenance has also had to rise while inflation is seeing the value of the fixed grant from DEFRA fall in real terms.

[Orwellian]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I always had Johnson down as the person responsible for the changes in law arising from the transfer order. 

As Legal Director he certainly was but he was also an advocate for the principle.

[Rob-M]

41 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Sat with my better half and did the box ticking this morning. Have to say a lot of the questions felt like Hobson’s Choice and you were just left scrabbling around for the least worst outcome.

 

Anyway, i’m sure it’s all irellevant, they know what they will do and a consultation is only being done so they can say they held one.

We completed it this morning and thought the same, a bit like do you want a kick in the face, a punch in the face or a baseball bat.

 

A bit disappointing they don't recognise that the boat and the licence is owned by a couple and allow for putting details of both owners.

[Orwellian]

1 minute ago, fanshaft said:

They also couldn't possibly have foreseen the huge expenditure required to make the reservoirs safe and to cope with breaches such as on the Calder & Hebble.  Income from property and other services  has actually risen beyond expectations, but expenditure on maintenance has also had to rise while inflation is seeing the value of the fixed grant from DEFRA fall in real terms.

Are you sure about that David? Evans mentions the Mon & Brec breach in that article and bemoans the refusal of government to fund it. He and others must have considered the probability of similar or greater failures. Their judgement was that the (illusionary) additional funding from simply becoming a charity would fund all future expenditure.

[Alan de Enfield]

57 minutes ago, IanD said:

Well, it seems extraordinary that the leaders of BW were so deluded about the long-term consequences of releasing an underfunded infrastructure body from a government-funded safety net, but it seems that they were... 😞

 

Some of us have 'known' BW for many years - no surprises there.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Are you sure about that David? Evans mentions the Mon & Brec breach in that article and bemoans the refusal of government to fund it. He and others must have considered the probability of similar or greater failures. Their judgement was that the (illusionary) additional funding from simply becoming a charity would fund all future expenditure.

 

 

Back in 2004/5 we looked at buying a Boat hire business on the M&B - the company accounts were a mess, and, their only income had been from the Government paying them out for '12 months loss of business'.

Therre had also been an earlier breach - from memory around 2001 / 2002, .

 

It subsequently closed as a result of another Breach in 2007 and again (from memory) in 2010.

 

Certainly dodged a bullet there.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 minutes ago, fanshaft said:

They also couldn't possibly have foreseen the huge expenditure required to make the reservoirs safe and to cope with breaches such as on the Calder & Hebble.  Income from property and other services  has actually risen beyond expectations, but expenditure on maintenance has also had to rise while inflation is seeing the value of the fixed grant from DEFRA fall in real terms.

Not sure that is entirely true. The projections made ten years ago included a safety buffer to cope with breaches. They also allowed for increased legislation, climate change, increased costs of maintenance and inflation.

 

Contribution from non-operational assets is £10 million below projection.

 

It was always intended that government grant should fall in real terms over the last 12 years of the agreement.

 

 

 

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

A bit disappointing they don't recognise that the boat and the licence is owned by a couple and allow for putting details of both owners.

 

In some cases yes, but not all. A slippery slope inviting opinions from all joint owners. Share boats would be a nightmare collecting all the views! 

 

 

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, fanshaft said:

They also couldn't possibly have foreseen the huge expenditure required to make the reservoirs safe and to cope with breaches such as on the Calder & Hebble.  Income from property and other services  has actually risen beyond expectations, but expenditure on maintenance has also had to rise while inflation is seeing the value of the fixed grant from DEFRA fall in real terms.

 

I suspect they were feeling all positive about the canals, having seen both the Rochdale and HNC reopened to much acclaim recently, largely funded of course by non-governmental sources (the Millenium Fund and the EU?) and with a lot of volunteer effort too.

 

But as a direct consequence it should have been obvious that around 25 years later the maintenance bill for these canals -- with lots of locks! -- was going to rise rapidly as things like new lock gates were needed, especially since some of the restoration was definitely done on the cheap. It was also known at the time that BW weren't spending enough on maintenance to stop the system gradually going downhill, and that there were already big maintenance backlogs as already discussed.

 

The Toddbrook reservoir breach could either be seen as a "black swan" event, or one consequence of an inadequate inspection regime, because things like this take second priority to emergency repairs -- of which more and more are needed due to the lack of maintenance.

 

You could say this is all with the benefit of hindsight, but in reality a lot of today's problems with the canals had their seeds already sown before CART was even formed, and there was certainly some optimistic glossing-over going on... 😞

Edited February 26, 2023 by IanD

[Rambling Boater]

Firefighting rather than long term planning/maintenance? Then again that seems to be the way of the world now.

 

I've often wondered what would happen if/when the system breaks down. I bet there will still be enough people with the energy and skills to keep the canals open, so long as enough people want to keep them open.

 

It's not all about money.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Rambling Boater

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Back in 2004/5 we looked at buying a Boat hire business on the M&B - the company accounts were a mess, and, their only income had been from the Government paying them out for '12 months loss of business'.

Therre had also been an earlier breach - from memory around 2001 / 2002, .

 

It subsequently closed as a result of another Breach in 2007 and again (from memory) in 2010.

 

Certainly dodged a bullet there.

An added problem on this canal is water supply from the Usk. It has been known for more than a decade that an abstraction licence would not be granted post 2022. CRT has dragged its heels in arranging an alternative supply and temporary measures will cost them £600,000 this year.

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

An added problem on this canal is water supply from the Usk. It has been known for more than a decade that an abstraction licence would not be granted post 2022. CRT has dragged its heels in arranging an alternative supply and temporary measures will cost them £600,000 this year.

 

And those C&RT apologists will argue the company is well managed !

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

37 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

An added problem on this canal is water supply from the Usk. It has been known for more than a decade that an abstraction licence would not be granted post 2022. CRT has dragged its heels in arranging an alternative supply and temporary measures will cost them £600,000 this year.

Do you know much more about that?

Is it liable to drag out for longer or has a permanent solution been found?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

55 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Do you know much more about that?

Is it liable to drag out for longer or has a permanent solution been found?

It's part of a canal wide problem because from 2023, CRT need abstraction licences to be in place and these often have conditions attached.

 

Situation ten years ago for the Mon & Brec was -

https://narrowboatworld.com/4076-twin-threat-to-mon-a-brec

 

With the Usk abstraction licence now preventing the trust from obtaining the water it needs it has agreed a temporary solution with Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales to take water from the Afon Lwyd. However, this can not be implemented in time for Easter.

 

The trust is now trying to arrange an emergency supply from Usk Reservoir, at a commercial tariff which In a dry year could cost over £600k.

 

***** edited to add, CRT have not said what the permanent solution is. Might still be hoping for an agreement on taking water from the Usk.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It's part of a canal wide problem because from 2023, CRT need abstraction licences to be in place and these often have conditions attached.

 

Situation ten years ago for the Mon & Brec was -

https://narrowboatworld.com/4076-twin-threat-to-mon-a-brec

 

With the Usk abstraction licence now preventing the trust from obtaining the water it needs it has agreed a temporary solution with Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales to take water from the Afon Lwyd. However, this can not be implemented in time for Easter.

 

The trust is now trying to arrange an emergency supply from Usk Reservoir, at a commercial tariff which In a dry year could cost over £600k.

 

***** edited to add, CRT have not said what the permanent solution is. Might still be hoping for an agreement on taking water from the Usk.

 

Right, so it’s the EA that are preventing the abstraction on grounds of it being detrimental to habitation. 
 

Now, I understand CRT are always wanting to get there hands on EA waters but always get turned down?

 

So in turn it raises a question for me, would CRT benefit from getting their hands on EA waters? 
While it would cost them to look after the waters would there be ‘side’ benefits making them worth taking on?

Such as, in this case water extraction for the canals?
 

the EA’s budget from DEFRA has risen proportionally well over the last 10 years. whether it’s enough I don’t know. could that possibly be negotiated to continue?? under CRT?
 

So basically what are the pros and cons of CRT taking over EA waters?
 

 

 

ETA: leaving aside it’s more to mismanage of course 🙂

Edited February 26, 2023 by Goliath

[Momac]

The company I work for has recently  been bought out

The entire board of directors has gone (no doubt with suitable financial reward).

 

 

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And those C&RT apologists will argue the company is well managed !

I don't think anybody is arguing that CART is well managed, but no amoumt of "better" management could magically fix their fundamental problems with funding and maintenance... 😞

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

I don't think anybody is arguing that CART is well managed, but no amoumt of "better" management could magically fix their fundamental problems with funding and maintenance... 😞

 

Only true in part.

 

A good effective management team could/should make what funds they have go further. Of course it wont (any where near) resolve the issue but I bet some efficiency savings could be found in the various parts of such a large ex public body.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Right, so it’s the EA that are preventing the abstraction on grounds of it being detrimental to habitation. 
 

Now, I understand CRT are always wanting to get there hands on EA waters but always get turned down?

 

So in turn it raises a question for me, would CRT benefit from getting their hands on EA waters? 
While it would cost them to look after the waters would there be ‘side’ benefits making them worth taking on?

Such as, in this case water extraction for the canals?
 

the EA’s budget from DEFRA has risen proportionally well over the last 10 years. whether it’s enough I don’t know. could that possibly be negotiated to continue?? under CRT?
 

So basically what are the pros and cons of CRT taking over EA waters?
 

 

 

ETA: leaving aside it’s more to mismanage of course 🙂

 

I don't think it would help. Most of the supply water comes from streams etc, not the big navigable rivers like the Thames, and also I think the proposed deal is that CRT would take over the navigation aspects, but EA would still handle the water management.

Last year we encounterred a bunch of CRT office type bods on the Rochdale Towpath and they were looking at each water supply, this is when I first heard about this problem, and that CRT might have to re-negotiate each and every little feed.

 

Another related issue is that some resevoirs are popular sailing/fishing/visiting places and these users do not like low water levels so request CRT not to take water. I have heard reports of issues on both Edgebastion (Birmingham) and Hollingworth (Rochdale). In this modern world the fact that these resevoirs were build to supply the canal counts for very little.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

Only true in part.

 

A good effective management team could/should make what funds they have go further. Of course it wont (any where near) resolve the issue but I bet some efficiency savings could be found in the various parts of such a large ex public body.

at least enough to fix all the paddles on the Cheshire flight 😂

been a couple of years since I’ve used them but each time there was another paddle out of use. 
maybe they’re all fixed now ?? 🤷‍♀️
 

(I bet this license consultation would have paid for it plus some other bits and bobs.)

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

I don't think it would help. Most of the supply water comes from streams etc, not the big navigable rivers like the Thames, and also I think the proposed deal is that CRT would take over the navigation aspects, but EA would still handle the water management.

Last year we encounterred a bunch of CRT office type bods on the Rochdale Towpath and they were looking at each water supply, this is when I first heard about this problem, and that CRT might have to re-negotiate each and every little feed.

 

Another related issue is that some resevoirs are popular sailing/fishing/visiting places and these users do not like low water levels so request CRT not to take water. I have heard reports of issues on both Edgebastion (Birmingham) and Hollingworth (Rochdale). In this modern world the fact that these resevoirs were build to supply the canal counts for very little.

Well they’re taking water from the River Goyt to feed the Macc. 
Or at least they were. While the Todbrook reservoir is fixed. 
 

So there must be some more rivers big enough that could help out our shortage of water?

 

But you’re saying it’s just Navigation Rivers that CRT are after?

 

But how about taking on some larger rivers in order rob the water?

 

[dmr]

10 minutes ago, Goliath said:

at least enough to fix all the paddles on the Cheshire flight 😂

been a couple of years since I’ve used them but each time there was another paddle out of use. 
maybe they’re all fixed now ?? 🤷‍♀️
 

(I bet this license consultation would have paid for it plus some other bits and bobs.)

Well they’re taking water from the River Goyt to feed the Macc. 
Or at least they were. While the Todbrook reservoir is fixed. 
 

So there must be some more rivers big enough that could help out our shortage of water?

 

But you’re saying it’s just Navigation Rivers that CRT are after?

 

But how about taking on some larger rivers in order rob the water?

 

 

They will only get control of navigation, but if they did get control of the water they would still have an obligation to keep water flowing down the rivers rather than taking too much. If there is not enough water flowing in the rivers then there is nothing to dilute the sewage and industrial waste 😀

Even worse, if they took too much water they would upset the mill owners and they would start smashing up the locks, just like the old days.

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

So basically what are the pros and cons of CRT taking over EA waters?

 So basically what are the pros and cons of the EA taking over C&RT waters?

[Barneyp]

35 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Only true in part.

 

A good effective management team could/should make what funds they have go further. Of course it wont (any where near) resolve the issue but I bet some efficiency savings could be found in the various parts of such a large ex public body.

The problem is that current and ex government departments don't and never have done efficiency savings, they cut costs which is a very different thing, it balances the books in the short term while building up problems for the future.

And it doesn't matter how good or effective the management team are if they don't have the resources to do the job they will end up looking bad because somethings will go wrong. BWB were already underfunded most savings had already been made.

 

I don't think CRT can be judged for not having managed the canals well enough because what they where trying to do was never going to work with the resources they had.

 

The most obvious failure of CRT senior management and directors is being stupid enough to take the job on in the first place.