Government CRT funding statement

[Orwellian]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

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.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying that Allan.

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

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

 

Which so far has happened only on the more popular waterways! 

 

One of the drivers of canal restoration in the 60s was that it was considerably cheaper than eliminating the canals in question. Elimination was used as the comparison because any other option ends up with maintenance liabilities. 

 

Elimination isn't easy, the canals have been around so long that they're an integral part of the land drainage system. I was working on a site recently where the contractor suddenly wondered where all the water was coming from, it was rising from the ground like a spring where the excavator had stuck it's beak in - they'd found the Shrewsbury canal at Ditherington where it was "eliminated" in the 60s. The Bentley canal had to have a pipe laid along the bed before infilling to replicate the drainage function, as well as having the lining ripped out. When the Derby Canal was infilled at Draycott the nearby railway started flooding...

 

The real issue is that, because the government transferred the waterways to a charity in a treacherous slight of hand, none of this is the government's problem. 

[Paul C]

Well, at least the idea has scored an "isn't easy". The other suggestions so far were:

 

1. A protest

2. Whine on social media

3. Sack CRT management and "some other" management come in which must be by default, automatically better?

4. Just hope

5. Vote Labour, it will be different. It is bound to be different.

 

 

 

 

[lampini]

15 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Well, at least the idea has scored an "isn't easy". The other suggestions so far were:

 

1. A protest

2. Whine on social media

3. Sack CRT management and "some other" management come in which must be by default, automatically better?

4. Just hope

5. Vote Labour, it will be different. It is bound to be different.

 

 

 

 

I recon 3) may have some merit after a small adjustment.. 

 

3. Sack CRT management and bring in "some other experienced in canal engineering” management  WHO ARE NOT BEING PAID THE EARTH WITH MASSIVE BONUSES come in which must be by default, automatically CHEAPER!

[Tonka]

5 minutes ago, lampini said:

I recon 3) may have some merit after a small adjustment.. 

 

3. Sack CRT management and bring in "some other experienced in canal engineering” management  WHO ARE NOT BEING PAID THE EARTH WITH MASSIVE BONUSES come in which must be by default, automatically CHEAPER!

Can't believe you have not had Professor Pat Pending @IanDchipping in telling you that you are all wrong like he was to me earlier in the thread.

[lampini]

6 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Can't believe you have not had Professor Pat Pending @IanDchipping in telling you that you are all wrong like he was to me earlier in the thread.

😂

Give ‘im a chance, squire - I’ve only been back 5 minutes!

 

[matty40s]

2 minutes ago, lampini said:

😂

Give ‘im a chance, squire - I’ve only been back 5 minutes!

 

How did you record those 5 minutes, was it done accurately using a GPS thermometer with Gamma timing and double cyclic crystal accuracy, or did you just guess like the 20 CRT boat checkers do when missing out Walsall basin.

[lampini]

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

How did you record those 5 minutes, was it done accurately using a GPS thermometer with Gamma timing and double cyclic crystal accuracy, or did you just guess like the 20 CRT boat checkers do when missing out Walsall basin.

Oh, I have missed your quips .. 😁

[Richard Fairhurst]

1 hour 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.

 

That's certainly true of the Rochdale. @magpie patrick has posted previously that the "certain length of time" was in the region of 80 years:

 

 

The Rochdale is the single canal I'd be most worried about, to be honest. It only takes the Calder Valley to flood one more time and the navigation will be closed. With only one holiday hirebase (currently up for sale) and very low boat traffic, it's not going to be top of the list to fix. I don't know, but I would guess the Millennium Commission grant agreement included a force majeure clause that CRT could try and invoke in case of major flooding - "sorry, we'd love to fix it, but our Government grant has been slashed and we have no money...".

Edited July 11, 2023 by Richard Fairhurst

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

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.

 

If you read what I posted you would have noticed that I mentioned that the navigation authority would still be responsible for providing that service. 

 

I was referring to the towpath ie the transition between water and land. There is money to be made here and this money should go into the upkeep of canals and their surroundings rather than subsidising cheap housing. 

 

Sewage, rubbish and fires are a red herring. They can all be dealt with using laws unrelated to canals. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

44 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

....

The real issue is that, because the government transferred the waterways to a charity in a treacherous slight of hand, none of this is the government's problem. 

Well it could be made governments problem again.

 

The current situation is that, following the ONS classification, CRT has been operating under a derogation from the Treasury which allows it to be treated as a charity for tax purposes. However, that derogation expired three months ago.

 

As an alternative to signing up to a new funding agreement (which would a allow ONS to classify CRT as a non government body), CRT could deregister as a charity and refuse to sign a new agreement.

 

This would place the ultimate responsibility for funding on government.

[Snakey]

10 hours ago, Tonka said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/canal-seine-nord-europe-5-5-billion-western-front-spc-intl/index.html

How about building new canals like they are doing in France. 

They had high-speed railway and we are copying that

So maybe we could copy the canal idea.

 

Let us see what Professor Pat Pending replies to that

 

10 hours ago, IanD said:

So if I'm wrong about the funding gap, how else can the canals be fixed?

 

Please don't say "with new ideas" yet again, you might as well say "the canal fairies will do it"... 😉

As of March 2023, the UK has 18 Billion of frozen Russian assets doing nothing...  Just sayin'

[magnetman]

Presumably this has been earmarked for US construction companies. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

Can't believe you have not had Professor Pat Pending @IanDchipping in telling you that you are all wrong like he was to me earlier in the thread.

That's because you *were* wrong, as became obvious when you stopped arguing facts and started with the insults... 😉

 

If you hope that your name-calling will annoy me you're sadly deluded, in fact exactly the opposite since patent awards helped to pay for my boat... 🙂

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

If you read what I posted you would have noticed that I mentioned that the navigation authority would still be responsible for providing that service. 

 

I was referring to the towpath ie the transition between water and land. There is money to be made here and this money should go into the upkeep of canals and their surroundings rather than subsidising cheap housing. 

 

Sewage, rubbish and fires are a red herring. They can all be dealt with using laws unrelated to canals. 

 

 

Sewage, rubbish and fires can be dealt with, but it costs money.

 

Without a new act of Parliament it wouldn't be possible which is a major obstacle, especially as the government would probably want to reduce their funding in return for changing the law.

 

While I agree there is some potential for monetising certain mooring spots to provide low cost housing I don't believe local authorities would want to take it on, or the majority of CMers would take advantage of it, why would they pay for something they currently get for free - it would take more than the law changing, there would have to be a major investment in enforcement which would probably cost more than the money raised.

 

And councils are elected by local residents who probably don't want the canals full of boats that never move and cause problems, meaning councillors won't back the idea.

 

Charging for use by cyclists is a nice idea, but no one seems able to think of a solution to the how do you do it question.

[Ronaldo47]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

Local authorities managing towpaths is the answer. 

If the standard of road maintenance by my local authority is anything to go by, the towpaths would soon become full of potholes that would be quite  effective in slowing down speeding cyclists. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typo

[Barneyp]

3 hours ago, Orwellian said:

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

No, I know it to be true, I just didn't have time to find the links to the exact information.

It is certainly the case for the Rochdale and HNC, and logically the lottery funding for the Montgomery would have similar conditions.

[David Mack]

8 hours ago, Grassman said:

whereas most NT places are able to charge for entry, use, car parking etc.

That may be true for the stately homes, castles and other buildings that NT owns. But they also own huge swathes of land that are free for anyone to access. They do make some money from parking/cafe/gift shop etc. but you can enjoy them without paying a penny if you wish. 

I have a NT estate a few hundred yards from home which I walk in for free most weeks (unless I stop off at the cafe), much like the walkers and cyclists on CRT's towpaths.

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

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. 

And what exactly would the benefit to the canals of the LA doing this rather than CRT doing exactly the same and keeping the money raised?

3 hours 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.

And the Huddersfield.

2 hours ago, lampini said:

 

3. Sack CRT management and bring in "some other experienced in canal engineering” management  WHO ARE NOT BEING PAID THE EARTH WITH MASSIVE BONUSES come in which must be by default, automatically CHEAPER

And where are you going to find a whole team experienced in canal engineering management who haven't worked for CRT? It isn't as if there are any other sizeable canal management organisations you could poach staff from.

Edited July 11, 2023 by David Mack

[NB Alnwick]

C&RT could learn a few things from the more successful heritage railway organisations - such as setting up a supporting membership group or a separate charity dedicating purely to fundraising.

I certainly think there is room for even more volunteer involvement - if railway volunteers can restore locomotives, rolling stock, stations and bridges then C&RT volunteers could do the same with locks, bridges, towpaths and visitor moorings

Edited July 11, 2023 by NB Alnwick

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

😉

 

in fact exactly the opposite since patent awards helped to pay for my boat... 🙂

 

To paraphrase a line from Jaws the movie

 

'you're gunna need a bigger hat'.

[DandV]

The inland waterways network is a fabulous asset.

It is integral to the very landscape, history, and indeed to the function, of its surrounding lands. 

It has ongoing functions that are purely  utilitarian, such as drainage, micromobility corridors,  and increasingly importantly, global warming mitigation.

To this can be added the originally unintended function as a place to locate moveable housing.

But the navigable  waterways also  provides the space and enabling for a very wide range of recreational and educational opportunities, as well as significant wildlife refuges.

And then there are the aesthetics.

Working waterways are true eye candy, as much in busy city centres, as in remote Yorkshire Moors and Lincolnshire fens. 

They are a defining elemment of so many of Great Britain's landscapes, and a very important link to it's past. 

They are internationally significant. 

 

It would be a national tragedy, and extremly  irresponsible to restart the decline of the waterways experienced at the mid of last century.

 

The physical assets were still very largely functional when we sold our boat five years ago.

The frontline staff that we encountered from EA and CART were generally good.

 

Unfortunately though, I could not say that about the either the very structure of their administration, or the legislation that they operate under.

CART's  structure,  as a charity is very largely dependant on ad hoc and annual donations, I rate the government grant's, as really just donations.

As such it's income is highly dependant on the financial health of it's donors which has little relationship with the waterways  maintenance needs. 

Structural degradation does not slow down to match budget reductions. 

The Waterways Acts are somewhat archaic reflective of bygone uses, primarily facilitating commercial boating, and have inadequate provision for coping with current largely unsanctioned demands to provide spaces for floating houses.

There also seems to inadequate provision for integration of some functions  with the surrounding local authorities.

 

Unfortunately all this suggests that the solutions are ultimately very largely political.

But, take heart there is a precedence for this.

The waterways renaissance last century was initiated at grass roots level.

A huge amount of volunteer hard work, a lot not officially sanctioned, coupled with old fashioned political activism.

This pushed it upwards, and kept it there until it did indeed become a political issue.

If it was done before, why not again?

 

Currenntly there is a huge amount of volunteer engagement,   in both  keeping the existing system functioning, and  working towards restoring further waterways to navigable status.

It would be a massive shame if this effort goes to waste, for the lack of will to elevate the matter back into the political arena, and keep it there until something gets done.

 

Good luck

 

[Orwellian]

Doubling the amount just announced for CRT wouldn't put much of a dent in this surplus.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Orwellian
correct spelling

[MtB]

13 hours ago, Jon57 said:

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

 

I agree. 5% at least is the benchmark for property gross return, and ideally a LOT more than that. 

 

All a bit chicken and egg though, as commercial property tends to get valued by looking at the rental return and calculating its capital value from an assumed return on capital of 5% (or whatever percentage you consider that class of property should return.)

[cuthound]

23 hours ago, Grassman said:

Another point - HS2 probably spends every week the amount of money CRT want for a whole year and our canals and rivers benefit far more people that HS2 ever will, and probably benefits the country's economy more than HS2 as well.

 

I think you may have something there.

 

Rebrand  CRT as "LS1", get the government to back it, then promote the advantages of taking as long as you like to get somewhere and spend the vest sums of money on maintenance, dredging, new lock gates and of course new signs (probably mid blue with yellow lettering)... 🤣😅

20 hours ago, Paul C said:

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.

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere back in the early 70's that the cost of closing canals was more expensive than providing new alternatives for drainage, irrigation etc, hence the reason why they were developed into leisure use rather than being closed and filled in, as this further reduced their costs.

[Barneyp]

20 hours ago, Paul C said:

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.

I think there are a couple more points that would need to be added to the calculation.

- how much will the government reduce the grant by if the network is made smaller?

- will closing one canal mean that businesses and boat owners on other canals think their canal might be next and decide to do something else, thus effecting CRT's direct income and general canal usesge 

 

I do think that a smaller better maintained network could be the answer, but I doubt CRT will close any canals because it would look like the organisation and the board members had failed.