Canals and River Trust: 'If we lose the canals, we are homeless'

[magnetman]

39 minutes ago, buccaneer66 said:

 

More likely a Sustrans super cycleway.

2WV transport is going to become a very big player with all the net zero nonsense. 

 

As I said before the existence of cycle paths beside canals puts the waterway at risk. If there is one thing that transport infrastructure wants it is more space. 

 

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

2WV transport is going to become a very big player with all the net zero nonsense. 

 

It's such a curious term.

 

No-one knows what "net zero" means, except it can't mean "zero" or that is what they'd say.

 

 

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

IIRC 50 years was also mentioned -- but again, no hard facts to back this up...

 

If this is going to stop being repeated as fact, then the same should apply to claims that CART can easily close down canals to save money -- sauce for the goose etc... 😉

 

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I have posted (a number of times) the written evidence that they can (remainder canals) it is even quoted in the ppost above yours.

 

In fairness to Ian, I think the point being made is that, while the legal avenue to close a canal is there (ie its not illegal to, for a remainder waterway), there are other barriers:

 

1. The possibility there is a contractual agreement with a restoration society that it be maintained/remain navigable for x years. (There might be a get-out clause though, who knows?)

2. That the canal serves (an) additional functions such as water drainage, water supply, or both.
3. The cost of the works itself, to make it safe on closure - such as modifying locks, shoring up banks, etc

4. Obvious other considerations such as ecological impact, moored boats on that stretch, loss of facility to actual boats, which obviously go against the aims of CRT (but may still deem it okay in the greater scheme of things).

5. The (possible) consultation/management/planning/publicity etc cost of doing so. (This cost might be very cheap though).

 

So, I fully accept only a proportion - maybe only a handful or even none - of the remainder waterways could be "officially closed". But, unlike some other suggestions, its POSSIBLE to do it. And a holistic view suggests that its entirely reasonable to focus on the more popular waterways instead, if resources are short. Of course we'd all like more and more canals but the government has announced and I don't see a U-turn imminent.

 

Its an interesting parallel with "Parly trains" - train services which are almost completely closed, save for a small handful of odd/obscure services still running to avoid the consultation process and admin for a full line/station closure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

 

 

[magnetman]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

It's such a curious term.

 

No-one knows what "net zero" means, except it can't mean "zero" or that is what they'd say.

 

 

I think it is quite amusing for a carbon based lifeform to be advocating for zero carbon. 

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I think it is quite amusing for a carbon based lifeform to be advocating for zero carbon. 

 

 

Quite so. A chemist friend of mine points out the carbon cycle would stop, with everything that means for the continuation or not of Life On Earth. 

 

So carbon per se is not a bad thing. 

 

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

 

In fairness to Ian, I think the point being made is that, while the legal avenue to close a canal is there (ie its not illegal to, for a remainder waterway), there are other barriers:

 

1. The possibility there is a contractual agreement with a restoration society that it be maintained/remain navigable for x years. (There might be a get-out clause though, who knows?)

2. That the canal serves (an) additional functions such as water drainage, water supply, or both.
3. The cost of the works itself, to make it safe on closure - such as modifying locks, shoring up banks, etc

4. Obvious other considerations such as ecological impact, moored boats on that stretch, loss of facility to actual boats, which obviously go against the aims of CRT (but may still deem it okay in the greater scheme of things).

5. The (possible) consultation/management/planning/publicity etc cost of doing so. (This cost might be very cheap though).

 

So, I fully accept only a proportion - maybe only a handful or even none - of the remainder waterways could be "officially closed". But, unlike some other suggestions, its POSSIBLE to do it. And a holistic view suggests that its entirely reasonable to focus on the more popular waterways instead, if resources are short. Of course we'd all like more and more canals but the government has announced and I don't see a U-turn imminent.

 

Its an interesting parallel with "Parly trains" - train services which are almost completely closed, save for a small handful of odd/obscure services still running to avoid the consultation process and admin for a full line/station closure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

 

 

What I find interesting is that it appears to be an option for the CRT to transfer waterways and the Parry geyser did use the word 'declassify' in his interview with the video blog geyser. 

 

So. The question must be "can the CRT transfer canals currently allocated 'cruiseway' status into the 'remainder'? "

 

I don't know the answer to this but it does seem an important point warranting further investigation. 

 

 

For example if a bean counter employed by the Trust discovered that the Grand Union Canal was too much of a financial burden could they apply to the secretary of state for approval to transfer it (GUC) to the 'remainder' under the 1968 Transport Act? 

 

I'm just asking questions and speculating as it seems interesting. 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

Its already been adequately covered.

[Jon57]

8 hours ago, IanD said:

So according to the article the canals support 80000 jobs and contribute £1.5B/year to the economy.

 

Meanwhile the government is crowing about the JLR battery factory generating 4000 jobs "and thousands more in the supply chain" -- so lets add the same again to get 8000 total -- and is said to be subsidising this development to the tune of £500M, and how this is good value for money and great news for the UK.

 

So on the same basis, didn't they ought to be willing to kick in £5B to support the canals with 10x the job count? Without eating into the capital, if this yielded even 3% a year that's £150M a year -- which funnily enough is the existing grant plus an extra £100M/yr to solve the maintenance backlog.

 

I'm sure some people will say this is ridiculous -- but why is it? For starters the canals are likely to last a damn sight longer than a battery factory, assuming they don't wither away die to lack of maintenance...

No back handed for their mates I think.

[magnetman]

35 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its already been adequately covered.

I still don't know the answer. 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

 

In fairness to Ian, I think the point being made is that, while the legal avenue to close a canal is there (ie its not illegal to, for a remainder waterway), there are other barriers:

 

1. The possibility there is a contractual agreement with a restoration society that it be maintained/remain navigable for x years. (There might be a get-out clause though, who knows?)

2. That the canal serves (an) additional functions such as water drainage, water supply, or both.
3. The cost of the works itself, to make it safe on closure - such as modifying locks, shoring up banks, etc

4. Obvious other considerations such as ecological impact, moored boats on that stretch, loss of facility to actual boats, which obviously go against the aims of CRT (but may still deem it okay in the greater scheme of things).

5. The (possible) consultation/management/planning/publicity etc cost of doing so. (This cost might be very cheap though).

 

So, I fully accept only a proportion - maybe only a handful or even none - of the remainder waterways could be "officially closed". But, unlike some other suggestions, its POSSIBLE to do it. And a holistic view suggests that its entirely reasonable to focus on the more popular waterways instead, if resources are short. Of course we'd all like more and more canals but the government has announced and I don't see a U-turn imminent.

 

Its an interesting parallel with "Parly trains" - train services which are almost completely closed, save for a small handful of odd/obscure services still running to avoid the consultation process and admin for a full line/station closure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

 

 

Thank you, that was exactly my point -- just because something is legally possible in theory doesn't mean it can be done in practice, especially if the reason to do it is to save money -- and closing (or abandoning) canals (or railway lines) is a perfect example of this... 😉

Edited July 21, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Its already been adequately covered.

 

 

Not very helpful.

 

Where has it been covered, please?

 

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

 

In fairness to Ian, I think the point being made is that, while the legal avenue to close a canal is there (ie its not illegal to, for a remainder waterway), there are other barriers:

 

1. The possibility there is a contractual agreement with a restoration society that it be maintained/remain navigable for x years. (There might be a get-out clause though, who knows?)

2. That the canal serves (an) additional functions such as water drainage, water supply, or both.
3. The cost of the works itself, to make it safe on closure - such as modifying locks, shoring up banks, etc

4. Obvious other considerations such as ecological impact, moored boats on that stretch, loss of facility to actual boats, which obviously go against the aims of CRT (but may still deem it okay in the greater scheme of things).

5. The (possible) consultation/management/planning/publicity etc cost of doing so. (This cost might be very cheap though).

 

So, I fully accept only a proportion - maybe only a handful or even none - of the remainder waterways could be "officially closed". But, unlike some other suggestions, its POSSIBLE to do it. And a holistic view suggests that its entirely reasonable to focus on the more popular waterways instead, if resources are short. Of course we'd all like more and more canals but the government has announced and I don't see a U-turn imminent.

 

Its an interesting parallel with "Parly trains" - train services which are almost completely closed, save for a small handful of odd/obscure services still running to avoid the consultation process and admin for a full line/station closure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

 

 

The problem with the idea of closing canals to save money is that the ones which would be obvious candidates because they're under-used and expensive to maintain (Rochdale, HNC) are also the ones which were reopened relatively recently with the help of a lot of money from external bodies, who will (allegedly) want it back if they're closed again.

 

And even apart from these, closing canals -- or abandoning them without officially closing them, in the hope that nobody notices -- is not easy, for all the reasons explained above. The little bits and stubs that could be closed with no real objections also tend to be ones where this would save very little money, if any... 😞

Edited July 21, 2023 by IanD

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

The problem with the idea of closing canals to save money is that the ones which would be obvious candidates because they're under-used and expensive to maintain (Rochdale, HNC) are also the ones which were reopened relatively recently with the help of a lot of money from external bodies, who will (allegedly) want it back if they're closed again.

 

And even apart from these, closing canals -- or abandoning them without officially closing them, in the hope that nobody notices -- is not easy, for all the reasons explained above. The little bits and stubs that could be closed with no real objections also tend to be ones where this would save very little money, of any... 😞

 

A cost (saving) - benefit analysis would need to be done. Its a pretty basic thing to do. It would soon reveal a sortable list. I don't think the Rochdale or HNC are the focus. I am thinking, more the BCN backwaters, the isolated canals, etc. I have tried to search out a list of the remainder waterways, unsuccessfully.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

A cost (saving) - benefit analysis would need to be done. Its a pretty basic thing to do. It would soon reveal a sortable list. I don't think the Rochdale or HNC are the focus. I am thinking, more the BCN backwaters, the isolated canals, etc. I have tried to search out a list of the remainder waterways, unsuccessfully.

Parts of the BCN are indeed far more likely candidates -- little used, unloved, nobody will ask for any money back if they close...

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

The problem with the idea of closing canals to save money is that the ones which would be obvious candidates because they're under-used and expensive to maintain (Rochdale, HNC) are also the ones which were reopened relatively recently with the help of a lot of money from external bodies, who will (allegedly) want it back if they're closed again.

 

 

Surely the likely sequence of events is CRT closes expensive-to-maintain HNC (or whatever) canal ---> external body demands their money back ---> CRT tells them to shove it ---> external body sues ---> CRT folds into administration ---> government gets the whole baby handed back again. 

 

Any flaws in that process? 

 

 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Surely the likely sequence of events is CRT closes expensive-to-maintain HNC (or whatever) canal ---> external body demands their money back ---> CRT tells them to shove it ---> external body sues ---> CRT folds into administration ---> government gets the whole baby handed back again. 

 

Any flaws in that process? 

 

 

From the government's point of view -- the end result is they get handed the whole underfunded mess back and it becomes their problem, so they can't blame anyone else any more.... 😞

 

The sums involved (tens of millions?) probably aren't big enough to make CART fold, it would just blow an even bigger hole in their finances and make things even worse. Which is why they won't do it if there's any threat of such litigation...

 

(still waiting for anyone who has actual knowledge about this to post it...)

[Paul C]

The external body might not have the will or the means to successfully sue CRT, thus CRT stays solvent and the canal is no longer.

[IanD]

Just now, Paul C said:

The external body might not have the will or the means to successfully sue CRT, thus CRT stays solvent and the canal is no longer.

 

Given that the payoff would be millions of pounds I'm sure they could make it happen, there are plenty of "no-win-no-fee" lawyers who would jump at the chance... 😉

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Given that the payoff would be millions of pounds I'm sure they could make it happen, there are plenty of "no-win-no-fee" lawyers who would jump at the chance... 😉

 

I'm not so sure. There isn't a "payoff" as such, there is an obligation to maintain it. But if CRT didn't have the money, then what does "winning" look like? They can't make CRT do it, all they could do was try and do it themselves then try get the money to do that from CRT which they don't have, (which is a very messy "win"), so they would be into the seizure of assets territory.

 

And no-win no-fee lawyers typically go for easy, low-hanging fruit. Not this kind of thing.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Paul C

[magnetman]

It seems to me that canals which never closed previously could be more at risk than those which were closed and then restored later with some sort of agreement (if it existed) about being kept 'open'. 

 

The CRT are in the opening phase of claiming impecuniosity. The man in charge has already mentioned it. 

 

This is when things change. 

 

I wonder what happens if a canal gets transferred to the remainder and this is followed by a private enterprise such as a group of marina operators offering to take it on and manage it as an alternative to letting it fall into disuse. 

 

Is there a mechanism whereby private operation of certain waterways would be a solution to funding problems faced by the CRT? 

 

 

 

 

[wandering snail]

22 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Correct, and any canals 'remaining' (remainder) from the list of canals once the commercial and crusing canals have been excluded are classed as 'watercourse / drainage ditches' not identified as suitable for navigation, and are categorised as 'vacant land' for planning permission definition.

 

1968 Transport Act

 

108.-(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, any inland waterway in England or Wales comprised in the undertaking of the Waterways Board which is not a commercial waterway or waterways. cruising waterway shall be deemed to be-

 

(a) a watercourse for the purposes of section 259 of the 1936 c. 49. Public Health Act 1936: and 

 

(b) a vacant site for the purposes of section 36 of the PART VII Town and Country Planning Act 1962 ; 

 

and the provisions of Part III of the said Act of 1936, as they apply by virtue of this subsection, may be enforced by a county council as well as by a local authority as defined in that Act, and any local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1962 (and not only the local planning authority) shall be entitled to enforce the provisions of the said section 36 as it applies by virtue of this subsection.

 

 

Remember also that written in the 1968 Act is that the 'Board' have the right to retain, close, sell (dispose of the remainder waterways) as they wish.

 

..........a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate.

 

 

Remember also that written in the 1968 Act is that the 'Board' have the right to retain, close, sell (dispose of the remainder waterways) as they wish.

 

..........a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate.

 

The board has no requirement to maintain the 'remainder' (ie not a commercial or cruising canal covered by the undertaking) canals in a navigable condition

 

 

 

 

 

Schedule 12 of the 1968 Act gives the lists of commercial and cruising canals, any not on the list would therefore be classed as remainder canals.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by wandering snail

[Orwellian]

48 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Schedule 12 of the 1968 Act gives the lists of commercial and cruising canals, any not on the list would therefore be classed as remainder canals.

 

But be careful as there were former 'remainder' waterways that have been reclassified to Cruising since 1968 so the original schedule is not wholly correct.

[IanD]

16 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

I'm not so sure. There isn't a "payoff" as such, there is an obligation to maintain it. But if CRT didn't have the money, then what does "winning" look like? They can't make CRT do it, all they could do was try and do it themselves then try get the money to do that from CRT which they don't have, (which is a very messy "win"), so they would be into the seizure of assets territory.

 

And no-win no-fee lawyers typically go for easy, low-hanging fruit. Not this kind of thing.

The "payoff" is for whichever body gets their money back -- with a cut for the lawyers.

 

Which would come out of CARTs £250M annual budget, which would reduce what is left for canal maintenance... 😞

 

NWNF lawyers take a significant slice out of any money, this slice would probably be a minimum of several hundred grand and maybe several million, which in a straightforward breach of contract case would be a big fee for a safe bet from a body with deep pockets -- if this isn't "low-hanging fruit" then I don't know what is... 😉

 

But it won't ever happen -- assuming these contractual terms exist! -- because it would be immediately obvious to CART that it's cheaper to keep such a canal open than close it. Which would of course be the reason the clause was put into the contract in the first place by whoever provided the funding... 😉

 

Still haven't had any confirmation about whether these "alleged" clauses exist, on which canals, and what the term is, so until then...

 

 

[Paul C]

I don't think you can say its a straightforward breach of contract, if you haven't seen the contract.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I don't think you can say its a straightforward breach of contract, if you haven't seen the contract.

<sigh> as has nobody -- but what has been said repeatedly is that the money was given on condition that the canal remained usable for navigation for <xx> years, which is hardly a surprising condition.

 

If CART either formally close it or reduce maintenance so it's effectively unusable, that's a clear breach of contract. Assuming that's what it said, which nobody has presented any proof of yet... 😉

Edited July 22, 2023 by IanD