Dredging/Mooring in Gloucester Docks

[frangar]

Ive been seeing some mention on social media that due to a silt build up and lack of CRT dredging that mooring in the main basin at Gloucester is now not possible. 

 

Does anyone know if this is true or just social media tittle tattle?

 

The pictures Ive seen show empty pontoons and dock walls....apparently there is talk of dredging a channel between the river lock and Llantony bridge but thats it. I would have thought if it was that bad then Neilsens would have made a lot of noise as bigger boats would have difficulty getting to them and into the dry docks...I have seen some having trouble trying to dock there before mind you.

 

It of course might only affect the larger vessels and not narrowboats but of course thats what the river and the G & S is designed for so should be navigable for such.

 

Any reports welcome!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-65249466

[frangar]

13 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-65249466

That doesn’t really say how bad it really is though…I’d never trust anything from the BBC!  

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

 

[frangar]

10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

 

But no reports from boaters or marine

businesses!! A few restaurants kicking up isn’t really the same is it? 

[jonesthenuke]

We moored our narrowboat in the dock at the pontoons in 2020. As we moved the boat we kicked up a lot of mud. I was surprised to find that it was about 4 feet deep when I dropped a pole over the side. I accept this was near the pontoons but it does suggest a very heavy silt burden was present back then. Given the published draught of 11ft 6 inches for the canal and docks it makes me wonder how much dredging has been done over the last few years.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

34 minutes ago, frangar said:

But no reports from boaters or marine

businesses!! A few restaurants kicking up isn’t really the same is it? 

 

I'd hazard a guess and say that this is becoming the norm for boaters, and nothing happens if you complain.

[Laurie Booth]

59 minutes ago, frangar said:

That doesn’t really say how bad it really is though…I’d never trust anything from the BBC!  

You can trust the BBC World Service

 

[IanM]

If the past is anything to go by, they normally start dredging it when something big gets stuck.

 

The constant back pumping from the River Severn is what causes the docks to silt up over time.

[Ian Mac]

Gloucester Docks are on a regular dredging programme. This is to manage the sediment brought up out of the river. Last year because of low river levels and higher demand for water, in the canal, a lot of additional water was required, this brought a vast amount of additional sediment up from the river. The Trust attempts to only run the pumps when there is low suspended sediment in the river, however that was not possible last year. This was further complicated as the pumps are being upgraded, so that even higher volumes can be lifted out of the river to satisfy customer demand. Net result lots of additional dredging required.

Dredging is one of the major costs incurred by the trust, this has be made significantly worse by the imposition of the landfill tax on all dredged material and the additional cost due to polluted material, which has to be dealt with under the modern expensive rules. All of this is further not helped as the grant from the government is not inflation linked , and when originally calculated assumed a less than 2% value for each year. The shortfall for the last year will be about £25M.
The Tories are now laughing all the way to the bank, however they have not loosened any of the statuary obligations which they imposed on The Trust, and neither have they allowed the costs which those duties produce to be reduced,

[Captain Pegg]

I moored at Gloucester overnight when delivering a boat to the G&S late last October. We couldn’t moor in the basin on that occasion and even accessing the service pontoon and the pontoon moorings opposite, all of which are beyond Llanthony bridge, was difficult due to the silting.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[ditchcrawler]

35 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

Gloucester Docks are on a regular dredging programme. This is to manage the sediment brought up out of the river. Last year because of low river levels and higher demand for water, in the canal, a lot of additional water was required, this brought a vast amount of additional sediment up from the river. The Trust attempts to only run the pumps when there is low suspended sediment in the river, however that was not possible last year. This was further complicated as the pumps are being upgraded, so that even higher volumes can be lifted out of the river to satisfy customer demand. Net result lots of additional dredging required.

Dredging is one of the major costs incurred by the trust, this has be made significantly worse by the imposition of the landfill tax on all dredged material and the additional cost due to polluted material, which has to be dealt with under the modern expensive rules. All of this is further not helped as the grant from the government is not inflation linked , and when originally calculated assumed a less than 2% value for each year. The shortfall for the last year will be about £25M.
The Tories are now laughing all the way to the bank, however they have not loosened any of the statuary obligations which they imposed on The Trust, and neither have they allowed the costs which those duties produce to be reduced,

How much more did the earn from all the extra water they sold?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Ian Mac said:

All of this is further not helped as the grant from the government is not inflation linked , and when originally calculated assumed a less than 2% value for each year. The shortfall for the last year will be about £25M.

 

Yes the grant was linked to an 'estimated' inflation rate which was 2.5% (not 2%).

 

I suppose that C&RT repaid some of their grant for all of the years that inflation was running at under 2.5% ? (2015 was 0.04%, 2016 was 0.66% etc etc)

 

The inflation rate over the last 10 years has (I believe) averaged 1.88% per annum so C&RT have been 'on a winner' since the grant was awarded.

 Only 2 years of the last 10 has the inflation been over 2.5% (until last year when it peaked at 9.07%)

 

C&RT winge and whine about the 'value' of the grant reducing when the truth is far from it. (until the last year)

 

Lets use facts not C&RTs version of events.

 

 

[jonesthenuke]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

How much more did the earn from all the extra water they sold?

This is the key issue. I would think CRT charge for the water and presumably the charge is enough to cover the dredging requirements? 

[frangar]

2 hours ago, jonesthenuke said:

This is the key issue. I would think CRT charge for the water and presumably the charge is enough to cover the dredging requirements? 

You might think that but given the mismanagement at CRT I wouldn't bet on it

4 hours ago, Ian Mac said:

Gloucester Docks are on a regular dredging programme. This is to manage the sediment brought up out of the river. Last year because of low river levels and higher demand for water, in the canal, a lot of additional water was required, this brought a vast amount of additional sediment up from the river. The Trust attempts to only run the pumps when there is low suspended sediment in the river, however that was not possible last year. This was further complicated as the pumps are being upgraded, so that even higher volumes can be lifted out of the river to satisfy customer demand. Net result lots of additional dredging required.

Dredging is one of the major costs incurred by the trust, this has be made significantly worse by the imposition of the landfill tax on all dredged material and the additional cost due to polluted material, which has to be dealt with under the modern expensive rules. All of this is further not helped as the grant from the government is not inflation linked , and when originally calculated assumed a less than 2% value for each year. The shortfall for the last year will be about £25M.
The Tories are now laughing all the way to the bank, however they have not loosened any of the statuary obligations which they imposed on The Trust, and neither have they allowed the costs which those duties produce to be reduced,

Perhaps the trust need to look at how they have charged for the water.....they are incredibly poor at managing any sort of contract for either the supply or sale of a service....Im sorry to say but they are no longer fit for purpose in any form.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes the grant was linked to an 'estimated' inflation rate which was 2.5% (not 2%).

 

I suppose that C&RT repaid some of their grant for all of the years that inflation was running at under 2.5% ? (2015 was 0.04%, 2016 was 0.66% etc etc)

 

The inflation rate over the last 10 years has (I believe) averaged 1.88% per annum so C&RT have been 'on a winner' since the grant was awarded.

 Only 2 years of the last 10 has the inflation been over 2.5% (until last year when it peaked at 9.07%)

 

C&RT winge and whine about the 'value' of the grant reducing when the truth is far from it. (until the last year)

 

Lets use facts not C&RTs version of events.

 

 

The facts are:-

CRT knowingly agreed to a funding deal that would see -

- a fixed core grant of £39m for the three years 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 with no index linking.

- an extra £10m per year from 2015/16 to 2021/22. However, only the core £39m would be index linked rather the whole amount. In real terms CRT agreed to a reduction in income!

- from 2022/23 to 3036/27 CRT agreed to grant being fixed at the 2021/22 level. In real terms a greater reduction in real terms compared with 2021/22.

[Steve56]

6 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

How much more did the earn from all the extra water they sold?

That's what I would like to know. I was always led to believe that CRT were paid some large sums of money to supply the water to Bristol Water. As this is part of the problem surely that money should be put back into maintaining the canal. But I suppose at the end of the day they will still keep getting the money even if the canal is to shallow for navigation.

[IanD]

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The facts are:-

CRT knowingly agreed to a funding deal that would see -

- a fixed core grant of £39m for the three years 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 with no index linking.

- an extra £10m per year from 2015/16 to 2021/22. However, only the core £39m would be index linked rather the whole amount. In real terms CRT agreed to a reduction in income!

- from 2022/23 to 3036/27 CRT agreed to grant being fixed at the 2021/22 level. In real terms a greater reduction in real terms compared with 2021/22.

Won't be worth much by 3036 though... 😉

 

Anyway, given inflation, agreeing to a flat grant from 2021 onward -- falling in real terms -- is either a demonstration of unjustified optimism by CART -- which magic money tree did they think was going to make up for this? -- or cravenly giving in to government demands that "this is what must happen", in the knowledge that this would lead to an increasing funding shortfall... 😞

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

..............which magic money tree did they think was going to make up for this?

 

As you know they 'fully identified' the money tree they would be using - however, their lack of horticultural skills in growing the identified money tree meant that they actually spent more money employing an ever growing group of aborculturalists, nurturing and maintaining said money, tree than the money tree ever produced.

It appears that they may have chosen the wrong species of money tree, (there are other varieties available which may bear more fruit).

[Allan(nb Albert)]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Won't be worth much by 3036 though... 😉

 

Anyway, given inflation, agreeing to a flat grant from 2021 onward -- falling in real terms -- is either a demonstration of unjustified optimism by CART -- which magic money tree did they think was going to make up for this? -- or cravenly giving in to government demands that "this is what must happen", in the knowledge that this would lead to an increasing funding shortfall... 😞

As I have already said government was pushing against an open door on this. The origional idea that BW could be independent of grant came from BW in about 2003 and only later (2010) became government policy.

 

The magic money tree was, of course, BW's non-operational property portfolio and the new investment opportunities provided by the lifting of government restrictions.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As I have already said government was pushing against an open door on this. The origional idea that BW could be independent of grant came from BW in about 2003 and only later (2010) became government policy.

 

The magic money tree was, of course, BW's non-operational property portfolio and the new investment opportunities provided by the lifting of government restrictions.

 

...which as Alan points out didn't bear fruit, and still isn't doing... 😞

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As you know they 'fully identified' the money tree they would be using - however, their lack of horticultural skills in growing the identified money tree meant that they actually spent more money employing an ever growing group of aborculturalists, nurturing and maintaining said money, tree than the money tree ever produced.

It appears that they may have chosen the wrong species of money tree, (there are other varieties available which may bear more fruit).

 

Same tired old argument, it's all CARTs fault -- are you saying you could have done better and won the game given the same hand they were dealt?

 

I'd be interested to know which other species of money tree you think CART could have grown, that would have provided an increasingly fruitful bounty... 😉

 

(realistically, not the kind of money tree that is a never-ending source of milk and honey like the ones the government keeps claiming they've found)

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The magic money tree was, of course, BW's non-operational property portfolio and the new investment opportunities provided by the lifting of government restrictions.

 

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

............didn't bear fruit, and still isn't doing...

 

 

It has at least moved in the 'right direction' (unlike the 'money tree' to which I was referring)

 

Investment & Property Income - has risen by 9% from 2015-16 to 2021-22

 

Not a great amount but it all adds up. I wonder what other, similar sized,  property developers have achieved over the period ?

 

C&RT Investment & Property Income 

2015-16 = £47.1m

2021-22 = £51.4m

[IanD]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It has at least moved in the 'right direction' (unlike the 'money tree' to which I was referring)

 

Investment & Property Income - has risen by 9% from 2015-16 to 2021-22

 

Not a great amount but it all adds up. I wonder what other, similar sized,  property developers have achieved over the period ?

 

C&RT Investment & Property Income 

2015-16 = £47.1m

2021-22 = £51.4m

 

So it's gone up in headline figures which sounds good, but not in real terms after adjustment for inflation (16% over that period) so in reality it's dropped by 7%... 😞

 

Same issue as when you claimed that the CART grant had increased since it was formed, when in real terms it had fallen by 10% (IIRC, see earlier post).

 

Other similar sized property developers are likely to have much more lucrative portfolios than CART, who AFAIK mainly own old buildings in industrial areas.

 

I'm not claiming that CART are wonderful and the best-managed company/charity around, but if you're going to criticise them then you could at least use realistic numbers and fair comparisons... 😉

 

(but I suspect you won't, because you dislike CART and just want to prove a point, valid or not -- and don't like being corrected, so I can guess what's coming next...)

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Same issue as when you claimed that the CART grant had increased since it was formed, when in real terms it had fallen by 10% (IIRC, see earlier post).

 

I would have thought that the grant being increased by the forcast 2,5% pa, when inflation actually increased by 1.88% per annum (over the period)  would question the claim that the grant value has fallen by 10% (IIRC)

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I would have thought that the grant being increased by the forcast 2,5% pa, when inflation actually increased by 1.88% per annum (over the period)  would question the claim that the grant value has fallen by 10% (IIRC)

Please read the earlier post, where you made a similar argument that the DEFRA grant had increased over a given period when it had decreased in real terms -- by 10%, IIRC.

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD