Government CRT funding statement

[Alan de Enfield]

4 hours ago, Jon57 said:

What is the value of the property that income comes from please.

 

Read the C&RT annual accounts all of the breakdown of assests, income and expendiure is shown.

[Paul C]

How about..........closing some of the less used, more expensive (relatively) to run, crappy canals and concentrating on the nice ones that loads of people visit? Maybe we should ask why they HAVEN'T done this already, and more so?

 

ETA when I say "closing", I actually mean "getting rid of", as in, passing to some other body, where it becomes their responsibility, they might use it for (chargeable) moorings, or might still allow navigation at a cost, or still allow its use for water supply or drainage etc. There is a framework for a Local Authority taking on any canal in their area. Or they might fill it in and use the land for something better.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Paul C

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

How about..........closing some of the less used, more expensive (relatively) to run, crappy canals and concentrating on the nice ones that loads of people visit? Maybe we should ask why they HAVEN'T done this already, and more so?

 

Good plan.  Grand Union, K&A and Regents would save a fortune ...

[Midnight]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

How about..........closing some of the less used, more expensive (relatively) to run, crappy canals and concentrating on the nice ones that loads of people visit? Maybe we should ask why they HAVEN'T done this already, and more so?

The less used ones are in the North across the Pennines. Less used because they've been virtually shut for 3 years.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

How about..........closing some of the less used, more expensive (relatively) to run, crappy canals and concentrating on the nice ones that loads of people visit? Maybe we should ask why they HAVEN'T done this already, and more so?

 

I think this IS what will happen.

 

And by 'less used', CRT will use walking and cycling as the measure, not boats. 

[magpie patrick]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

How about..........closing some of the less used, more expensive (relatively) to run, crappy canals and concentrating on the nice ones that loads of people visit? Maybe we should ask why they HAVEN'T done this already, and more so?

 Because the less popular ones are also, in general terms, the less expensive ones... 

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 Because the less popular ones are also, in general terms, the less expensive ones... 

Unless there's a breach? Or a feed reservoir breach?

[Barneyp]

12 minutes ago, Paul C said:

How about..........closing some of the less used, more expensive (relatively) to run, crappy canals and concentrating on the nice ones that loads of people visit? Maybe we should ask why they HAVEN'T done this already, and more so?

Because it's not that simple. Closing a canal doesn't mean CRT just stop maintaining it and walk away.

 

For some canals that have been restored by trusts or charities (possibly with lottery funding) CRT have an agreement to maintain them for a certain amount of time which would prevent them walking away.

 

Even if CRT don't have an obligation to maintain, they can't just walk away and leave structures (locks, bridges etc,) to become dangerous as they would be liable. Also there would be environmental impacts that they would have to consider.

[Paul C]

Yep, accepted there's exit costs.

 

The process is something like this:

 

1. You make a list of the canals or sections under consideration

2. You assess its ongoing maintenance costs, vs the costs of closure/mothballing/obligated ongoing post-closure maintenance etc

3. You assess the number of 'visitors' or its 'benefit' in a suitable metric, for example, number of lockings, or number of dogs & owners that walked along it, or man hours of fishing which occurred on it

4. You also assess what impact its removal might have. For example, does it break a ring, cause a massive drainage or water supply issue etc

 

Once that is done, you have a metric of cost/benefit, which is sortable and actionable.

[peterboat]

On 10/07/2023 at 17:15, M_JG said:

 

You are missing the point.

 

They are meant to be opening up the canals to as many people as possible. Boats and boaters are crucial to this and boats should be seen as a crucial asset in achieving this. 

 

From where I sit they seem to treat boaters more like an irritating nuisance.

I have just said this to a CRT manager on Linkedin! They are total arses and dont realise the benefits of moving boats

[magnetman]

45 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Good plan.  Grand Union, K&A and Regents would save a fortune ...

I put the Regents on eBay about ten yars ago but there wasn't much interest. I did mention that the canal was in fact land which someone had at some stage put water over the top of. 

 

 

[Jon57]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

Firstly, it is no longer just a property portfolio because CRT also has acquired significant non-property assets. The latest figures are from the 2021/22 Annual Report and are as follows -

The value of CRT's investment assets (property and non-property) was £1.14 billion.
These produced a gross return of £51.4 million.

However, it is wrong to say that £51.4 million goes into the general pot for running CRT. That is because of the expenditure needed to raise that sum - £17.7 million.

 

The actual contribution made to the "general pot" was £33.7 million (for comparison that was just under 50% of CRT's employment costs of £70.3 million).

Put another way in 2021/22, CRT's £1.14 billion of property and non-property assets produced a net return of just under 3%.

By a peculiar coincidence, some of those assets were purchased with a £150 million long term loan with CRT paying interest of just under 3%.

 

3% is way too little return in my opinion. Crt need to work harder by 50% at least 

[magnetman]

Local authorities managing towpaths is the answer. There will be income available from charging for moorings. There will also be the opportunity to install residential mooring schemes towpath side, in areas of high demand. Local authority gets the money. 

 

The CRT can be retained to deal with basic management of infrastructure such as locks, dredging and owned bridges.

 

The transition from water to land, ie the towing path, is the place where change needs to happen. 

 

It is just a mix of pleasure boat use and residential. There are land based issues such as dickhead cyclists and aggressive anglers.

Both of these groups need to be paying more into the system but that is very difficult to achieve. 

 

Towpath management by local bodies with an interest in the area seems sensible. 

 

 

 

 

[Tonka]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Local authorities managing towpaths is the answer. There will be income available from charging for moorings. There will also be the opportunity to install residential mooring schemes towpath side, in areas of high demand. Local authority gets the money. 

 

The CRT can be retained to deal with basic management of infrastructure such as locks, dredging and owned bridges.

 

The transition from water to land, ie the towing path, is the place where change needs to happen. 

 

It is just a mix of pleasure boat use and residential. There are land based issues such as dickhead cyclists and aggressive anglers.

Both of these groups need to be paying more into the system but that is very difficult to achieve. 

 

Towpath management by local bodies with an interest in the area seems sensible. 

 

 

 

 

But that needs people to pay for mooring. The vast majority of linger longer do nit pay for moorings

[Orwellian]

49 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

For some canals that have been restored by trusts or charities (possibly with lottery funding) CRT have an agreement to maintain them for a certain amount of time which would prevent them walking away.

Which canals are these?

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But that needs people to pay for mooring. The vast majority of linger longer do nit pay for moorings

 

Not now they don't but it would be quite interesting to see what happens if they get looked at and charged mooring fees. 

 

This seems to be a revenue opportunity. Charge for services. Put mooring rings in more places. 

 

 

[Orwellian]

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Local authorities managing towpaths is the answer. There will be income available from charging for moorings. There will also be the opportunity to install residential mooring schemes towpath side, in areas of high demand. Local authority gets the money. 

 

The CRT can be retained to deal with basic management of infrastructure such as locks, dredging and owned bridges.

 

The transition from water to land, ie the towing path, is the place where change needs to happen. 

 

It is just a mix of pleasure boat use and residential. There are land based issues such as dickhead cyclists and aggressive anglers.

Both of these groups need to be paying more into the system but that is very difficult to achieve. 

 

Towpath management by local bodies with an interest in the area seems sensible. 

 

 

 

 

Except that Local Authorities barely have enough money to carry out their existing statutory duties. Why should they take on somebody else's problems?

[magnetman]

Just now, Orwellian said:

Except that Local Authorities barely have enough money to carry out their existing statutory duties. Why should they take on somebody else's problems?

 

This the standard argument. 

 

Yes it is a good point but on the other hand the local authorities could make money out of boats which are in their area. Either by charging visitor mooring fees or sorting out residential schemes some of which would be paid for by benefits. 

 

Universal Credit housing element is paid for by the DwP. I don't know exactly how all of these departments work but it seems on the face of it to be a way for local authorities to get more money from the government.

 

People who can afford to pay pay and people who can't afford to pay claim benefits and thus transfer government money to local authorities. 

 

Of course the basic flaw in this is that nobody actually wants to live on a boat. 

 

 

(on a ditch)

[Jon57]

4 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Except that Local Authorities barely have enough money to carry out their existing statutory duties. Why should they take on somebody else's problems?

Seem to me crt have been lumbered with some council problems of suppling affordable housing. Let them manage some of the moorings in problem areas 

[Arthur Marshall]

26 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But that needs people to pay for mooring. The vast majority of linger longer do not pay for moorings

Which is why licence rates for continuous cruisers, most of whom aren't, are likely to increase so that they pay the equivalent of a licence plus the crt mooring fee - ie virtually double what they pay now. As I've said before , everybody moors their boat every night, but only some of us pay for it.

Whatever happens, it's going to hurt.

[Barneyp]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

This the standard argument. 

 

Yes it is a good point but on the other hand the local authorities could make money out of boats which are in their area. Either by charging visitor mooring fees or sorting out residential schemes some of which would be paid for by benefits. 

 

Universal Credit housing element is paid for by the DwP. I don't know exactly how all of these departments work but it seems on the face of it to be a way for local authorities to get more money from the government.

 

People who can afford to pay pay and people who can't afford to pay claim benefits and thus transfer government money to local authorities. 

 

Of course the basic flaw in this is that nobody actually wants to live on a boat. 

 

 

(on a ditch)

There are only certain areas where this would work, the local authorities could potentially monetise and maintain some sections of the canals, but if the rest of the canal is not maintained there will be no water to float the boats.

And if local authorities formalise what is already happening in some areas thay will have to take responsibility for the problems it creates eg sewage being emptied straight into the canal, rubbish dumped on the towpath, smoke from solid fuel stoves etc. At the moment they can deny responsibility for these things, if they are making money from the boats they would be held accountable.

 

[Orwellian]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

However, it is wrong to say that £51.4 million goes into the general pot for running CRT. That is because of the expenditure needed to raise that sum - £17.7 million.

Are you sure that expenditure figure is correct? The latest Annual Report & Accounts show it as £13.4. Not hugely different but it's best to be correct.

[Barneyp]

38 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Which canals are these?

I believe the Rochdale and at least one section of the Montgomery received lottery funding for restoration on condition that they would remain open for a certain length of time, CRT took on responsibility to meet this condition when the restored sections were transferred to them.

[Orwellian]

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I believe the Rochdale and at least one section of the Montgomery received lottery funding for restoration on condition that they would remain open for a certain length of time, CRT took on responsibility to meet this condition when the restored sections were transferred to them.

So it's what you believe to be the case not a proven fact.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Are you sure that expenditure figure is correct? The latest Annual Report & Accounts show it as £13.4. Not hugely different but it's best to be correct.

I am pleased that you have taken the trouble to check the figures.

Expenditure on raising Investment and property income is £13.4m plus the interest on CRT's £150m loan which is £4.3m (see the line below the one you are quoting).

 

So the total expenditure on on raising Investment and property income is £17.7m.