Government CRT funding statement

[David Mack]

27 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

To better try and explain what I mean; I also have a 1950’s motorbike, essential costs are petrol, oil and replacing any bits that break (or fall off and are lost), ‘other stuff’ is insurance, bike leathers, club membership etc. 

Nobody has to own a 1950s motorbike, so none of your essential costs are actually essential. But if you are going to own and use one, then third party insurance is a legal requirement, so is 'essential'.

[uncle nick]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Nobody has to own a 1950s motorbike, so none of your essential costs are actually essential. But if you are going to own and use one, then third party insurance is a legal requirement, so is 'essential'.

Insurance isn’t really essential, it’s only essential if I want to use it on public roads. If I only use it on private land, off-road there’s no legal responsibility for insurance. 
But I get your point and agree for a road bike. 
I was just wondering if there was a way to separate maintaining the waterways from the whole ‘canal experience’?

[magnetman]

23 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

Insurance isn’t really essential, it’s only essential if I want to use it on public roads. If I only use it on private land, off-road there’s no legal responsibility for insurance. 
But I get your point and agree for a road bike. 
I was just wondering if there was a way to separate maintaining the waterways from the whole ‘canal experience’?

 

Transfer land management including towpath moorings to local authorities..

 

CRT get income from boaters and maintain the navigation ie water and locks. Other stuff around land gets dealt with by the appropriate authority which, given that canals are a linear public amenity/park, is the local authority. And Yes they can benefit from this and should benefit from this. 

 

Fines for people mooring their boats in locks as a loophole. 

 

 

 

The basic story with inland waterways is one of water and land. These are two separate things however people who live 'on the water' in the vast majority of cases do need access to land. This land needs to be managed by the appropriate local government for the benefit of the people who live in the vicinity. Its really not rocket science. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, uncle nick said:

Does anyone know, or is it even calculated and published, what percentage of total funding CaRT spend on actual maintenance /improvement of the navigable system (eg lock maintenance) compared to tow paths, fishing stuff, bug hotels? 
Since the ‘other stuff’ is of benefit to all of society, surely it should be 100% government funded via taxation, be it income tax, VAT or whatever. 
Leaving the CaRT to concentrate on maintaining the actual waterways. 
Or am I being to simplistic?

Current grant can be used for any of CRT's charitable objects. It has been suggested that government might restrict the use of post 2027 grant to specific maintenance projects.

 

After taking into account costs involved in raising income, CRT has about £180m to spend on maintaining its waterways and "other stuff". I have made two information requests this year that might answer "how much does CRT spend on maintenance".

 

The first is with the information commisioner as CRT deemed it as vexatious on the grounds of cost.

 

The second is two weeks old and CRT has yet to acknowledge or respond.

[peterboat]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Transfer land management including towpath moorings to local authorities..

 

CRT get income from boaters and maintain the navigation ie water and locks. Other stuff around land gets dealt with by the appropriate authority which, given that canals are a linear public amenity/park, is the local authority. And Yes they can benefit from this and should benefit from this. 

 

Fines for people mooring their boats in locks as a loophole. 

 

 

 

The basic story with inland waterways is one of water and land. These are two separate things however people who live 'on the water' in the vast majority of cases do need access to land. This land needs to be managed by the appropriate local government for the benefit of the people who live in the vicinity. Its really not rocket science. 

 

 

What happens if they dont maintain the towpath or won't allow boats to moor?

[uncle nick]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Transfer land management including towpath moorings to local authorities..

 

CRT get income from boaters and maintain the navigation ie water and locks. Other stuff around land gets dealt with by the appropriate authority which, given that canals are a linear public amenity/park, is the local authority. And Yes they can benefit from this and should benefit from this. 

 

Fines for people mooring their boats in locks as a loophole. 

 

 

 

The basic story with inland waterways is one of water and land. These are two separate things however people who live 'on the water' in the vast majority of cases do need access to land. This land needs to be managed by the appropriate local government for the benefit of the people who live in the vicinity. Its really not rocket science. 

 

 

Sorry but I’m not sure why you posted this; it doesn’t answer my original post, or add anything to me trying to clarify what I meant.

If you wanted to try and make a point, why quote my post?

Posting on a forum is rarely rocket science, or very few people would be allowed!

[Ianws]

3 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

Sorry but I’m not sure why you posted this; it doesn’t answer my original post, or add anything to me trying to clarify what I meant.

If you wanted to try and make a point, why quote my post?

Posting on a forum is rarely rocket science, or very few people would be allowed!

It's easy for people to quote when they just meant to reply to the topic. It happens regularly. 

[magnetman]

45 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

I was just wondering if there was a way to separate maintaining the waterways from the whole ‘canal experience’?

I misinterpreted this bit. 

[uncle nick]

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

After taking into account costs involved in raising income, CRT has about £180m to spend on maintaining its waterways and "other stuff". I have made two information requests this year that might answer "how much does CRT spend on maintenance".

Thank you. 
That doesn’t seem very much for 2000 miles of canal network. 
I was wondering if it was feasible for the money from licence fees to be spent on maintenance and the rest to be publicly funded.  

[magnetman]

 

In this part you appear to be asking "how can canal maintenance be separated from 'the canal experience'?" 

 

In these words I extracted a potential interest in the separation of 'canal maintenance' and the 'canal experience'. 

 

These are two different things which I agree need separating. 

 

This is the key point. Nail hit on head even though you may not have realised it. 

 

I'm sorry if this is not what you were asking but just in case it was I offered an answer. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

Thank you. 
That doesn’t seem very much for 2000 miles of canal network. 
I was wondering if it was feasible for the money from licence fees to be spent on maintenance and the rest to be publicly funded.  

This is why the land should be transferred to local government control. 

 

Geddit?

[uncle nick]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

In this part you appear to be asking "how can canal maintenance be separated from 'the canal experience'?" 

 

In these words I extracted a potential interest in the separation of 'canal maintenance' and the 'canal experience'. 

 

These are two different things which I agree need separating. 

 

This is the key point. Nail hit on head even though you may not have realised it. 

 

I'm sorry if this is not what you were asking but just in case it was I offered an answer. 

 

 

That’s exactly what I was asking, thank you!

[magnetman]

 

Separate the land from the water.

 

Take the money for land use (mooring fees, hired out paddle boards etc) into local government coffers, charge a licence fee to boat users for access to the water and infrastructure directly associated with boat use. 

 

People need to tie the boat up but they also need to understand this is a service and can be charged for. 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

That doesn’t seem very much for 2000 miles of canal network. 

 

 

They do not have 2000 miles of canals tho, do they !

[uncle nick]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Separate the land from the water.

 

Take the money for land use (mooring fees, hired out paddle boards etc) into local government coffers, charge a licence fee to boat users for access to the water and infrastructure directly associated with boat use. 

 

People need to tie the boat up but they also need to understand this is a service and can be charged for. 

 

 

 

 

I agree 100% in principle but I’d say it’s hard to differentiate 100% in practice, eg paddle boards directly use the water, so should contribute to canal maintenance. 
Even a legitimate 100% constant cruiser needs to use the tow path to access shops etc. 
Nothing in life is ever straightforward!

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

They do not have 2000 miles of canals tho, do they !

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/canal-and-river-network

Not including Scotland. 

[magnetman]

27 minutes ago, peterboat said:

What happens if they dont maintain the towpath or won't allow boats to moor?

 

Sorry I missed this earlier Peter. 

 

 

That would be a local choice by local government. I think in most cases they would probably quite like boats to be around but if not then so be it. 

 

I don't think it is very useful for the future of inland waterways to perpetuate the idea that there are free moorings everywhere. At some point the CRT (or local government) will have to start getting money for the moorings. It seems inevitable as an outcome. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

I agree 100% in principle but I’d say it’s hard to differentiate 100% in practice, eg paddle boards directly use the water, so should contribute to canal maintenance. 
Even a legitimate 100% constant cruiser needs to use the tow path to access shops etc. 
Nothing in life is ever straightforward!

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/canal-and-river-network

Not including Scotland. 

 

 

Read and digest the 1st 12 words (after the title) in the link you have posted.

 

C&RT DO NOT have 2000 miles of canals

Edited August 23, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

I agree 100% in principle but I’d say it’s hard to differentiate 100% in practice, eg paddle boards directly use the water, so should contribute to canal maintenance. 
Even a legitimate 100% constant cruiser needs to use the tow path to access shops etc. 
Nothing in life is ever straightforward!

 

It is not easy but the canals are now being marketed as a public amenity. Making Life Better By Water. It is quite clear. 

This can be viewed as a Good Thing or a Bad Thing depending on your own personal view, agenda and goals. 

 

In reality you have to rid yourself (not you personally) of these burdens and consider what might in fact be best for the canals themselves and the people who access them either by land or using the water. 

 

It may be time for thinking hats to be put on and major changes. 

 

As for the canals being marketed as parkland this can only be a Good Thing as it can empower people who may have felt they could not gain access because of the perception of it being a closed shop. 

 

It is a closed shop but it doesn't have to be. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Read and digest the 1st 12 words (after the title) in the link you have posted.

 

C&RT DO NOT have 2000 miles of canals

So how many miles of rivers do they have then? 😉

[ditchcrawler]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

So how many miles of rivers do they have then? 😉

I'll start with the easy ones Severn, Trent, Lee, Stourt, stour,

[peterboat]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I'll start with the easy ones Severn, Trent, Lee, Stourt, stour,

Don, Aire and Ouse up here

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, IanD said:

So how many miles of rivers do they have then? 😉

 

I'm sure you could find the answer as easily as I did.

If I tell you, you will only question the figures, if you find it yourself you will (maybe) believe it.

[uncle nick]

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Read and digest the 1st 12 words (after the title) in the link you have posted.

 

C&RT DO NOT have 2000 miles of canals

I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant. 
If you want to be pedantic, ‘tho’ is not exactly accurate, perfect English either!

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, uncle nick said:

I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant. 

 

Yes - you were very clear with what you wrote, You quoted what you thought you had read, but in fact it was not as you thought.

 

Be very careful what you read  and rely on from BW / C&RT - One of there best 'howlers' was when BW who, responding to a challenge from a barrister, justified their claim that an internal BW memo superceded an Act of Parliament, by reason of its later date.

It left the barrister nonplussed. All he could come out with once back on his chair, was – “Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?”

 

Their grasp of reality is tenuous at the best of times.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I'll start with the easy ones Severn, Trent, Lee, Stourt, stour,

Somewhat academic but C&RT don't quite have all of the Trent. 

C&RT responsibility ends at Gainsborough.

 

Yorkshire Ouse 

River Soar

River Witham

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Somewhat academic but C&RT don't quite have all of the Trent. 

C&RT responsibility ends at Gainsborough.

 

Yorkshire Ouse 

River Soar

River Witham

 

 

 

 

I also doubt that they have authority / responsibility all the way from where it rises on Biddulph Moor.

Where does C&RTs authority over the Trent start ?