More C&RT Dishonesty?

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Momac said:

I  may be wrong thought it was said elsewhere that closing canals was not legally permitted?

IIRC closing cruising waterways would need an Act of Parliament, which is unlikely to happen.

 

However many of the more expensive to maintain and little-used remainder waterways like the Rochdale and HNC could be closed more easily -- though if this means refunding grants used to re-open them, this may cost more in the short-term, which is where the big funding problem is.

 

Doesn't stop "business advisers" recommending something that wouldn't work in practice though, it's happened often enough in the past... 😞 

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Momac said:

I  may be wrong thought it was said elsewhere that closing canals was not legally permitted?

 

It is written in an act of parliament that if C&RT cannot justify keeping a canal open (there are some restrictions and qualifications) then they can close it, sell it or give it a way.

 

The folks saying they cannot do it are guessing that when a canal has been funded by (say) the lottery that there will be conditions as to what can be done with it. No one has yet produced evidence to substantiate that perception.

C&RT are under no obligation to 'take on' any canal that has been 'bought back to life' by volunteers etc, but they have done in the past.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is written in an act of parliament that if C&RT cannot justify keeping a canal open (there are some restrictions and qualifications) then they can close it, sell it or give it a way.

 

The folks saying they cannot do it are guessing that when a canal has been funded by (say) the lottery that there will be conditions as to what can be done with it. No one has yet produced evidence to substantiate that perception.

C&RT are under no obligation to 'take on' any canal that has been 'bought back to life' by volunteers etc, but they have done in the past.

Are you sure about the first line? It's been said before that to permanently close a cruising waterway (or is this what "restrictions and qualifications" means?) needs an Act of Parliament...

 

The argument about terms of re-opening grants (millenium fund, councils etc.) has been had many times -- and as you say nobody on either side has produced definitive evidence  to show whether this is the case or not, unsurprising since contract terms are often not made public. Which is why I carefully said "if this means refunding grants"... 🙂 

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's been said before that to permanently close a cruising waterway (or is this what "restrictions and qualifications" means?)

 

Yes.

C&RT are obliged to keep open for navigation all canals listed as Cruising Canals. I have never seen any document stating how they can be 'delisted', and nothing that actually states an AoP is needed.

 

 

The 1968 Act graded the Board's waterways into three
categories:—

‘Commercial waterways’ to be maintained in navigable
condition for use by commercial freight carrying
vessels,

‘Cruising waterways’ to be maintained in navigable
condition for use by powered pleasure craft, and

‘Remainder waterways’ to be dealt with in the most
economical manner possible whether by retaining,
developing, eliminating or disposing of them.

Edited April 18 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes.

 

 

The 1968 Act graded the Board's waterways into three
categories:—

‘Commercial waterways’ to be maintained in navigable
condition for use by commercial freight carrying
vessels,

‘Cruising waterways’ to be maintained in navigable
condition for use by powered pleasure craft, and

‘Remainder waterways’ to be dealt with in the most
economical manner possible whether by retaining,
developing, eliminating or disposing of them.

 

Which is exactly what I said for remainder waterways. Cruising waterways need an AoP to close them, yes?

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Which is exactly what I said for remainder waterways. Cruising waterways need an AoP to close them, yes?

 

Yes (ish)

C&RT are obliged to keep Cruising waterways open and navigable.

 

But all those remainder waterways that have been re-opened because of volunteers 'taking on the canal' etc can still be closed UNLESS they have officially been given cruising status. and are logged by C&RT as such. Or, if it has a condition in the grant, from (say) the Lottery, and then who has agreed to the condition C&RT or the Restorers ?

 

Obviously all of the current 'rest' of the remainder canals can just be left to be abandoned, if C&RT so wish.

 

Any canal which is not on the list of 'Commercial canals' or 'Cruising canals' is classified as a remainder canal - there is no specific list of remainder canals.

Edited April 18 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes.

 

But all those remainder waterways that have been re-opened because of volunteers 'taking on the canal' etc can still be closed UNLESS they have officially been given cruising status. and are logged by C&RT as such. Or, if it has a condition in the grant, from (say) the Lottery, and then who has agreed to the condition C&RT or the Restorers ?

 

Obviously all of the current 'rest' of the remainder canals can just be left to be abandoned, if C&RT so wish.

 

Any canal which is not on the list of 'Commercial canals' or 'Cruising canals' is classified as a remainder canal - there is no specific list of remainder canals.

We're agreeing here then 🙂 

 

Remainder waterways are vulnerable, some (e.g. HNC, Rochdale) may or may not be protected by grant repayments being required on closure -- which would have to be paid by CART since they'd be the organisation doing the closing. The K&A was converted to a cruising waterway some time ago.

 

But IIRC the other unprotected remainder waterways form a relatively small part of the system; many of the heavily-locked expensive-to-maintain canals are cruising waterways and very difficult to close even if this would save a lot of money, because the chance of getting government time for an AoP is pretty much zero.

[magpie patrick]

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The folks saying they cannot do it are guessing that when a canal has been funded by (say) the lottery that there will be conditions as to what can be done with it. No one has yet produced evidence to substantiate that perception.

 

 

Let me help you here - I'm one of the folks who works on the grant funding - in the case of two canals (Cotswold & Droitwich) I was the guy handling the money for HLF, and two more (Rochdale and Huddersfield) I had a responsibility for seeing that the restoration was in accordance with the grant terms, which in turn depended on who had given the grant - I was part of a team monitoring for English Partnerships and had to scratch my head very hard when upon abolition of EP the scheme was handed to NWRDA but without enough budget to finish the job. That's one of the reasons the shallows through Miles Platting (?) was only partially excavated - me (and others) deciding that so long as a navigable corridor was created that "would do" for fulfilling the grant purposes.

 

Grants ALWAYS have a term limitation, as in, the grant contract has a stipulation that the grant purpose must be maintained for a given period once the works are complete. If land purchase is involved in the project, it's usually 80 years. The only way to wriggle out of this would be to argue that, say, navigation wasn't the purpose of the grant but arose as a result of the grant works that are otherwise being maintained - such an approach is unlikely to succeed. The alternative is to pay the grant back - this is on a sliding scale but may also be index linked, so closing a canal 25 years into a grant funded term of 80 years might mean paying 55/80ths back but that would be adjusted for inflation... inflation since 2000 is approx 80%, so closing a canal restored with a grant, before the grant term expires, can be pretty expensive.

BW tried to stop running trips into Standedge Tunnel as they were losing money, but the boats etc were grant funded (this time 30 years) and repaying the grant would cost more than they were losing. 

[IanD]

23 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Let me help you here - I'm one of the folks who works on the grant funding - in the case of two canals (Cotswold & Droitwich) I was the guy handling the money for HLF, and two more (Rochdale and Huddersfield) I had a responsibility for seeing that the restoration was in accordance with the grant terms, which in turn depended on who had given the grant - I was part of a team monitoring for English Partnerships and had to scratch my head very hard when upon abolition of EP the scheme was handed to NWRDA but without enough budget to finish the job. That's one of the reasons the shallows through Miles Platting (?) was only partially excavated - me (and others) deciding that so long as a navigable corridor was created that "would do" for fulfilling the grant purposes.

 

Grants ALWAYS have a term limitation, as in, the grant contract has a stipulation that the grant purpose must be maintained for a given period once the works are complete. If land purchase is involved in the project, it's usually 80 years. The only way to wriggle out of this would be to argue that, say, navigation wasn't the purpose of the grant but arose as a result of the grant works that are otherwise being maintained - such an approach is unlikely to succeed. The alternative is to pay the grant back - this is on a sliding scale but may also be index linked, so closing a canal 25 years into a grant funded term of 80 years might mean paying 55/80ths back but that would be adjusted for inflation... inflation since 2000 is approx 80%, so closing a canal restored with a grant, before the grant term expires, can be pretty expensive.

BW tried to stop running trips into Standedge Tunnel as they were losing money, but the boats etc were grant funded (this time 30 years) and repaying the grant would cost more than they were losing. 

Hurrah, some actual evidence at last from someone who knows the facts, instead of speculation!!! 🙂

 

So which "remainder waterways" canals does that leave that could be closed to actually save money then?

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Let me help you here -

 

That is interesting background to the grant system but doesn't really move us forward as you have not actually indicated the conditions of grant for the 4 canals you name.

 

If you were responsible for ensuring that the grant terms were met, you would presumably be aware of the grant terms.

 

Did this include the purchase of land, or simply restoration of the old canal route ?

What was the 'term' of each grant, how many years remaining ?

Who was the grant with ? (the restoration group or C&RT)

Did C&RT accept the grant terms when it was handed over to them ?

Did C&RT officially change the status from Remainder to Cruising. 

 

Appreciate your input.

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Hurrah, some actual evidence at last from someone who knows the facts,

 

I'm not seeing any 'facts' I'm seeing a general outline of how grants work.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is interesting background to the grant system but doesn't really move us forward as you have not actually indicated the conditions of grant for the 4 canals you name.

 

If you were responsible for ensuring that the grant terms were met, you would presumably be aware of the grant terms.

 

Did this include the purchase of land, or simply restoration of the old canal route ?

What was the 'term' of each grant, how many years remaining ?

Who was the grant with ? (the restoration group or C&RT)

Did C&RT accept the grant terms when it was handed over to them ?

Did C&RT officially change the status from Remainder to Cruising. 

 

Appreciate your input.

 

I'm not seeing any 'facts' I'm seeing a general outline of how grants work.

I'm seeing information from someone who knows a damn sight more about this than anyone else -- including you or me -- who has been arguing about this... 😉 

 

If you don't want to believe this because it contradicts what you've kept on saying, that's your problem. I'm happy to believe it, for the opposite reason... 🙂 

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

I'm seeing information from someone who knows a damn sight more about this than anyone else -- including you or me -- who has been arguing about this... 😉 

 

I agree, I also am seeing information about the grant system, but I am not seeing any facts.

 

How long was the term for the Rochdale ?

What was the agreed payback for early termination ?

Who was the grant paid to ?

Did C&RT amend the staus of the canal ?

 

etc etc

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I agree, I also am seeing information about the grant system, but I am not seeing any facts.

 

How long was the term for the Rochdale ?

What was the agreed payback for early termination ?

Who was the grant paid to ?

Did C&RT amend the staus of the canal ?

 

etc etc

Some of which might also be commercially confidential, otherwise it would presumably be in the public domain.

 

We already know that both the Rochdale and HNC are still classed as "remainder waterways", IIRC you provided the evidence for this last time the subject came up... 😉 

[magpie patrick]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you were responsible for ensuring that the grant terms were met, you would presumably be aware of the grant terms.

 

 Yes, although its some years ago

 

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Did this include the purchase of land, or simply restoration of the old canal route ?

 

 Grants are normally part of a package, as they match fund each other, so if the project involves land purchase then the grant will be based on land purchase, typically grants where land purchase is required a binding for far longer than if only works are required. 

 

For Droitwich and Cotswold the term was 80 years - this was HLF funding (Cotswold isn't CRT of course)

 

 I seem to recall (but it is now 25 years since I did the work) that Rochdale and Huddersfield were 125 years this was EP funding. Rochdale also got MIllenium Funding which may only have been 80 years (I don't know - not my department on that canal) but because of the package approach to funding CRT can't argue that the bit they're closing wasn't EP funded.  

 

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Who was the grant with ? (the restoration group or C&RT)

Did C&RT accept the grant terms when it was handed over to them ?

 

 Usually the local authority (restoration groups don't have the capacity to handle multi-million pound projects) except Droitwich where it was BW, although curiously they didn't "own" the canal until it was finished. 

 

The scheme could not be transferred without such an agreement, but for everything except the Cotswolds BW were signatories to the grant, even the Rochdale as they were signing the contract to manage it (the canal was leased to the Waterways Trust who were absorbed into CRT anyway). 

 

Grant contracts are complex documents - I've been on both sides arguing about them. They are full of clauses and have very little wriggle room. 

 

None of the waterways is now cruiseway.

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

What was the agreed payback for early termination ?

 

 

It's not an agreed payback, it's a penalty for breach of contract

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 Yes, although its some years ago

 

 Grants are normally part of a package, as they match fund each other, so if the project involves land purchase then the grant will be based on land purchase, typically grants where land purchase is required a binding for far longer than if only works are required. 

 

For Droitwich and Cotswold the term was 80 years - this was HLF funding (Cotswold isn't CRT of course)

 

 I seem to recall (but it is now 25 years since I did the work) that Rochdale and Huddersfield were 125 years this was EP funding. Rochdale also got MIllenium Funding which may only have been 80 years (I don't know - not my department on that canal) but because of the package approach to funding CRT can't argue that the bit they're closing wasn't EP funded.  

 

 Usually the local authority (restoration groups don't have the capacity to handle multi-million pound projects) except Droitwich where it was BW, although curiously they didn't "own" the canal until it was finished. 

 

The scheme could not be transferred without such an agreement, but for everything except the Cotswolds BW were signatories to the grant, even the Rochdale as they were signing the contract to manage it (the canal was leased to the Waterways Trust who were absorbed into CRT anyway). 

 

Grant contracts are complex documents - I've been on both sides arguing about them. They are full of clauses and have very little wriggle room. 

 

None of the waterways is now cruiseway.

All of which means that if CART closed the Rochdale or HNC they'd have to pay back a sum similar to the original EP/Millennium grants that funded their restoration, or maybe even more allowing for inflation. Either way, the sums involved would be huge, and *far* outweigh any maintenance saving by closing them, even over many years. I wonder if anyone has ever pointed this out? 😉 

 

So yes, in theory they could be closed because they're remainder waterways -- but in practice they can't be, it would be way too expensive to make any financial or business sense.

 

Good news -- we get to keep the HNC and Rochdale, hurrah! 🙂

Bad news -- CART can't save money by closing them, so they're still in a financial hole, boo... 😞 

Edited April 18 by IanD

[magpie patrick]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So which "remainder waterways" canals does that leave that could be closed to actually save money then?

 

Off the top of my head the Northern BCN is remainder and navigable, there are probably others. There aren't that many of them though. 

 

Most of the expensive canals with big structures are cruiseways. 

 

 

[IanD]

47 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Off the top of my head the Northern BCN is remainder and navigable, there are probably others. There aren't that many of them though. 

 

Most of the expensive canals with big structures are cruiseways. 

 

 

At least next time someone suggests that CART could save loads of money by closing down lots of expensive-to-run canals, we can refer back to this thread to show that this isn't the case... 🙂 

Edited April 18 by IanD

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Can you provide any evidence to support that comment?

Yes Ovo offered them the 2. Odd million for the straddle to expand into, they wanted the water below it as well. So it went to auction along with the arches and made just over 1 million. I know the owner of OVO and the sale is public record 

[Orwellian]

So Ovo offered more for what was not for sale. That you know the unsuccessful bidder is immaterial. Auction is regularly used by charities to ensure they receive proper value

9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Yes Ovo offered them the 2. Odd million for the straddle to expand into, they wanted the water below it as well. So it went to auction along with the arches and made just over 1 million. I know the owner of OVO and the sale is public reco

 

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Yes Ovo offered them the 2. Odd million for the straddle to expand into, they wanted the water below it as well. So it went to auction along with the arches and made just over 1 million. I know the owner of OVO and the sale is public record 

Did OVO buy it then?

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Did OVO buy it then?

No somebody else bought it, OVO wanted the water under the building, Richard with the Dorothy Pax told me who it was but I was busy at the time, I will ask him next time who his new landlord is

10 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So Ovo offered more for what was not for sale. That you know the unsuccessful bidder is immaterial. Auction is regularly used by charities to ensure they receive proper value

 

OVO offered when it was up for sale prior to auction, but they wanted the water below the straddle as well, they didn't offer for the arches as they didn't want them

[Orwellian]

So what you posted was just nonsense then.

[Tacet]

27 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So what you posted was just nonsense then.

Not at all.  Someone (allegedly) offered CRT £2m for something.

 

CRT sold something else to somebody else for £1m.  The £2m person did not bid on what was actually for sale  because they didn't want it.

 

If that doesn't demonstrate CRTs incompetence, nothing will.

 

 

[peterboat]

34 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So what you posted was just nonsense then.

No for 2 million they wanted the water below it, they had their reasons ie moorings for their boat but also to do work on the straddle itself which CRT have left empty and get in extremely run down condition. 

[MtB]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

But trying to push the blame onto CART or NHS management (or staff!) conveniently draws attention away from the real culprit, which is insufficient government funding... 😞 

 

 

Good point. 

 

But remind me, where does the government get its funds from?