License fees for hire boat

[Nightwatch]

In a recent different thread I tried, but failed, to get across my opinion regarding services supplied by CRT paid for by all our license fees.

Who ever puts more gash  in the bins, or uses more water or moves further along the system, all the bins and all the water taps and the locks and the water is still there. Part of the fees we pay is distributed to various department for maintenance, repairs and much more.

If by any chance a major service is withdrawn at the saving in expenditure, surely CRT are failing to meet their agreed specification with the license holders. If, as has been stated, CRT are underspending by, say, £3,000,000, surely some explanation ought to be published to said license payers as to what that ‘saving’ is to be used to the benefit of the license payers. The tow paths are awful after such a short time. Almost impassable on foot. Many miles of mooring spots are unusable due to H&S issues regarding potential holes on the tow path edge. In addition, long grass and weeds grow into saplings and continue to grow. Come the time when CRT decide to tidy the towpaths are the contractors contracted to remove saplings with their mowers or are they, quite rightly, in order to ask for additional funds to remove such saplings? Have the contractors had their income reduced accordingly. False economy perhaps.

In the same way, how can CRT decide that a waste compound is no longer required. Or a water point is no longer required.

Just to add, has the cleaning regime at CRT offices been adjusted to save money? Doubtful in my opinion.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

Just to add, has the cleaning regime at CRT offices been adjusted to save money

they’re saving up to sweep Parry out  

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

by any chance a major service is withdrawn at the saving in expenditure, surely CRT are failing to meet their agreed specification with the license holders.

 

You should remember that the boaters contract wth C&RT covers the provision of 'navigation only'. It is written into law (The waterways Acts) that C&RT can charge a surcharge for the provision of any improvements or services. Currently C&RT are providing the following which they would be within their rights to charge for :

 

Improved visitors moorings (edge dredging, armco, rings, bollards etc)

Elsans

Toilets

Potable water

Waste bins

 

Be careful what you wish for !

[TheBiscuits]

3 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

Many miles of mooring spots are unusable due to H&S issues regarding potential holes on the tow path edge.

 

See, I don't understand that Martyn.  If there's a chuffing great hole in the edge right where I want to moor, I pull the boat forwards or backwards six feet and I can then easily get on and off.

 

It only matters where you want to step on and off the boat.

[DandV]

For a variety of reasons, reasons that are currently being vigorously debated in the Political and Current Affairs thread, both the Government and Councils are exceedingly broke.

Very worthwhile causes like healthcare and education provision are suffering serious degradation.

None of this can be attributed  to Cart. 

 

Old things are maintenance intensive, especially when it is considered important to maintain heritage values.

Very old things more so.

 

So where realistically can Cart gain more money to just stabilise the system?

Doing the impossible with insufficient resources , and then incurring the wrath of people because not enough is being done, detracts considerably  from job satisfaction. Who would blame senior CART management from now  moving on.

And without more resources, realistically how would this change things.

Sure some of CART spending on promotion was questionable. 

And that new logo, to replace a classic, was pure vandalism.

But it was the government who instructed them to go out and seek alternative funding.

So they had to at least try, even when increasing austerity made it obvious that it was unlikely to be successful.

 

Edited July 6, 2024 by DandV

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

See, I don't understand that Martyn.  If there's a chuffing great hole in the edge right where I want to moor, I pull the boat forwards or backwards six feet and I can then easily get on and off.

 

It only matters where you want to step on and off the boat.

 

Quite. Holes in the ground happen all over the countryside and they are a natural hazard everyone needs to be aware of, not just on towpaths.

 

If CRT ran around spending £ms filling all the holes in people would complain they put too much earth in, or too little....

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

22 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

See, I don't understand that Martyn.  If there's a chuffing great hole in the edge right where I want to moor, I pull the boat forwards or backwards six feet and I can then easily get on and off.

 

It only matters where you want to step on and off the boat.

Very true, and most of

us need to step off at lock landings therefore they at least should be looked after.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Quite. Holes in the ground happen all over the countryside and they are a natural hazard everyone needs to be aware of, not just on towpaths.

 

If CRT ran around spending £ms filling all the holes in people would complain they put too much earth in, or too little....

 

 

 

 

Starmer guaranteed to fill in 1 million potholes (within 7 days of coming to power - I added that bit) without extra council funding - maybe he should take over C&RT management.

[Nightwatch]

53 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

See, I don't understand that Martyn.  If there's a chuffing great hole in the edge right where I want to moor, I pull the boat forwards or backwards six feet and I can then easily get on and off.

 

It only matters where you want to step on and off the boat.

See, you have misunderstood what I wrote.  If the grass is so long that you can’t see holes in the towpath edge p, I for one, would find it difficult to move the boat six feet or six miles with a potential broken ankle.

MTB. Who suggested that CRT should fill in all the holes that have not been filled as and when they appeared.

 

Really some people!!!🤪

[Arthur Marshall]

36 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

See, you have misunderstood what I wrote.  If the grass is so long that you can’t see holes in the towpath edge p, I for one, would find it difficult to move the boat six feet or six miles with a potential broken ankle.

MTB. Who suggested that CRT should fill in all the holes that have not been filled as and when they appeared.

 

Really some people!!!🤪

If the grass is that long, I either don't try to moor there or, if I do, take extra care. You do have to take some responsibility - I mean boats are intrinsically unsafe things to be on. And they go through the countryside, which is made of earth. It gets rained on, as well as scrabbled by dogs, cats and fishermen, so bits of it get worn away. It's called nature.

[adam1uk]

6 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

In a recent different thread I tried, but failed, to get across my opinion regarding services supplied by CRT paid for by all our license fees.

Who ever puts more gash  in the bins, or uses more water or moves further along the system, all the bins and all the water taps and the locks and the water is still there. Part of the fees we pay is distributed to various department for maintenance, repairs and much more.

If by any chance a major service is withdrawn at the saving in expenditure, surely CRT are failing to meet their agreed specification with the license holders. If, as has been stated, CRT are underspending by, say, £3,000,000, surely some explanation ought to be published to said license payers as to what that ‘saving’ is to be used to the benefit of the license payers. The tow paths are awful after such a short time. Almost impassable on foot. Many miles of mooring spots are unusable due to H&S issues regarding potential holes on the tow path edge. In addition, long grass and weeds grow into saplings and continue to grow. Come the time when CRT decide to tidy the towpaths are the contractors contracted to remove saplings with their mowers or are they, quite rightly, in order to ask for additional funds to remove such saplings? Have the contractors had their income reduced accordingly. False economy perhaps.

In the same way, how can CRT decide that a waste compound is no longer required. Or a water point is no longer required.

Just to add, has the cleaning regime at CRT offices been adjusted to save money? Doubtful in my opinion.

 

You speak as if CRT are spending less on the waterways than they get in from boaters, which simply isn't true.  (And when you say underspending by £3million, I think you mean a reduction in spending of £3million -- which is quite different).

 

Anyway, according to the latest accounts 2022/23), boat licences and moorings brought in £47.3 million pounds.

 

Expenditure included:

Major infrastructure work £46million (a lot of which was on reservoirs in this particular year)

Caring for the waterways £35.4million (which includes inspections, repairs, workshops, engineering etc)

Vegetation: £8million

Dredging £7.4million

Operational buildings, plant, craft, and equipment £16.9million

 

all of which adds up to more that £113million.

 

If boaters were paying for all the things that kept the waterways running, the licence fee would be (as MtB frequently proposes) double what it is now.

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

6 hours ago, adam1uk said:

 

You speak as if CRT are spending less on the waterways than they get in from boaters, which simply isn't true.  (And when you say underspending by £3million, I think you mean a reduction in spending of £3million -- which is quite different).

 

Anyway, according to the latest accounts 2022/23), boat licences and moorings brought in £47.3 million pounds.

 

Expenditure included:

Major infrastructure work £46million (a lot of which was on reservoirs in this particular year)

Caring for the waterways £35.4million (which includes inspections, repairs, workshops, engineering etc)

Vegetation: £8million

Dredging £7.4million

Operational buildings, plant, craft, and equipment £16.9million

 

all of which adds up to more that £113million.

 

If boaters were paying for all the things that kept the waterways running, the licence fee would be (as MtB frequently proposes) double what it is now.

 

 

You need to add in all the additional income which indirectly comes from boating. Canalside or other canal related industry.  Other rental properties parking fees etc. without boats much of this would go or reduce significantly. 
 

In the same way the Government Grant needs to have the benefits of canals considered. All the income from businesses on and around the canal, direct through tax and NI as well as providing employment. Then there’s all the tourism attracted in from other countries which is surprisingly significant. Just look at every few miles we travel on a canal and imagine it all gone as it has on most derelict canals. Theres significant amounts of financial benefits from this that doesn’t appear in any income or expense account. 
 

Even angling and cycling pastimes are contributing to Government coffers due to the network bringing in revenue from angling and cycling sales and businesses. 

 

Very few parts of the network would remain in water without boats so I guess that more houses could be built though . 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

You need to add in all the additional income which indirectly comes from boating. Canalside or other canal related industry.  Other rental properties parking fees etc. without boats much of this would go or reduce significantly. 
 

In the same way the Government Grant needs to have the benefits of canals considered. All the income from businesses on and around the canal, direct through tax and NI as well as providing employment. Then there’s all the tourism attracted in from other countries which is surprisingly significant. Just look at every few miles we travel on a canal and imagine it all gone as it has on most derelict canals. Theres significant amounts of financial benefits from this that doesn’t appear in any income or expense account. 
 

Even angling and cycling pastimes are contributing to Government coffers due to the network bringing in revenue from angling and cycling sales and businesses. 

 

Very few parts of the network would remain in water without boats so I guess that more houses could be built though . 

All true, but from the government point of view that means the main benefits of the canals are to non-boaters, hence all the KPIs which are nothing to do with navigation or maintenance... 😞

 

Most of those benefits would still be there if the canals were stretches of water with greenery and towpaths and no boat traffic or working locks -- and I'm sure the NBTA would be happy since boats could then moor anywhere and never move... 🙂

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Most of those benefits would still be there if the canals were stretches of water with greenery and towpaths and no boat traffic or working locks -- and I'm sure the NBTA would be happy since boats could then moor anywhere and never move... 🙂

 

And there is at least one stretch of canal showing just how well that model works. The Basingstoke west of the (closed) Greywell tunnel has no boats on it and is a delightful, idyllic stretch of canal, filled with crystal clear water so you can see the fish and all other the aquatic life in there. Much used and loved by loads of walkers, naturalists and the the local public in general.

 

The rest of the canals (with boats on) are a disgrace in comparison. All churned up and full of mud. I wouldn't be at all surprised if getting rid of the boats is CRT's main, unwritten, long term objective. Managing the system with boats and boaters gone will be SO much easier, and cheaper, and all those KPIs more easily met.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2024 by MtB
Add a bit.

[Stroudwater1]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And there is at least one stretch of canal showing just how well that model works. The Basingstoke west of the (closed) Greywell tunnel has no boats on it and is a delightful, idyllic stretch of canal, filled with crystal clear water so you can see the fish and all other the aquatic life in there. Much used and loved by loads of walkers, naturalists and the the local public in general.

 

The rest of the canals (with boats on) are a disgrace in comparison. All churned up and full of mud. I wouldn't be at all surprised if getting rid of the boats is CRT's main, unwritten, long term objective. Managing the system with boats and boaters gone will be SO much easier, and cheaper, and all those KPIs more easily met.

 

 

 

 

 

Surely that section was restored by or thanks to pressure from the canal society?

 

I can’t think of any previously derelict canal improving from silting up/ development over without involvement of canal societies/WRG/IWA or equivalent. What is in water is generally remains of flood/river alleviation schemes. 
 

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Surely that section was restored by or thanks to pressure from the canal society?

 

I can’t think of any previously derelict canal improving from silting up/ development over without involvement of canal societies/WRG/IWA or equivalent. What is in water is generally remains of flood/river alleviation schemes. 
 

 

Truth is I dunno. 

 

The main section of the Basy was restored but I'm describing the short bit at the far end, beyond the bat-infested Greywell tunnel which hasn't had a boat on it since the tunnel collapse in (at a guess) the 1960s. So would never have been 'restored' as there was no access to it.

 

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Starmer guaranteed to fill in 1 million potholes (within 7 days of coming to power - I added that bit) without extra council funding - maybe he should take over C&RT management.

 

Funny you should say that. I was only moaning on another site that all the potholes Starmer promised to get fixed were still there 48 hours after he got elected! What's he been DOING, all this time!! 

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

Just now, MtB said:

 

Truth is I dunno. 

 

The main section of the Basy was restored but I'm describing the short bit at the far end, beyond the bat-infested Greywell tunnel which hasn't had a boat on it since the tunnel collapse in (at a guess) the 1960s. So would never have been 'restored' as there was no access to it.

 

I could also be wrong but my understanding is the aim one day is to navigate to Basingstoke? A bit like Lapal or Norwood if the tunnel isn’t fully an option lock round open bits up or rejig the navigation where built up etc. 

 

Many restorations don’t necessarily get a bit open that’s connected but get bits open as a “look what can be done/ join us/ volunteer with us/give us funds to do more” strategy. 
 

Fundamentally a bit like a garden artificial in its origin if completely left to nature it reverts to wasteland often the forest without management. Perhaps good for some nature but not for nature reliant on water habitats

[IanD]

39 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And there is at least one stretch of canal showing just how well that model works. The Basingstoke west of the (closed) Greywell tunnel has no boats on it and is a delightful, idyllic stretch of canal, filled with crystal clear water so you can see the fish and all other the aquatic life in there. Much used and loved by loads of walkers, naturalists and the the local public in general.

 

The rest of the canals (with boats on) are a disgrace in comparison. All churned up and full of mud. I wouldn't be at all surprised if getting rid of the boats is CRT's main, unwritten, long term objective. Managing the system with boats and boaters gone will be SO much easier, and cheaper, and all those KPIs more easily met.

 

 

I don't honestly think that's what CART want because they also see themselves as custodians of a historic piece of industrial archaeology unparalleled anywhere else in the world -- but it's the direction their KPIs are slowly pushing them in... 😞

 

What is needed is a recognition from the government and DEFRA that preserving the UK canals as a unique historic -- and working! -- navigation system is in itself worthwhile, and this should be reflected in the KPIs.

 

Maybe the new government is an opportunity to try and make this happen, but unfortunately there isn't one strong voice speaking for the canals to make this happen -- though hopefully Fund Our Waterways could become that, if only all the canal communities could unite behind it instead of defending their own interests...

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

And there is at least one stretch of canal showing just how well that model works. The Basingstoke west of the (closed) Greywell tunnel has no boats on it and is a delightful, idyllic stretch of canal, filled with crystal clear water so you can see the fish and all other the aquatic life in there. Much used and loved by loads of walkers, naturalists and the the local public in general.

 

The rest of the canals (with boats on) are a disgrace in comparison. All churned up and full of mud. I wouldn't be at all surprised if getting rid of the boats is CRT's main, unwritten, long term objective. Managing the system with boats and boaters gone will be SO much easier, and cheaper, and all those KPIs more easily met.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you explain that the Terminal Basin in Basingstoke is now a bus station?

 

Hardly a rural idyll.

Edited July 7, 2024 by cuthound
Clarification

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

How do you explain that the Terminal Basin in Basingstoke is now a bus station?

 

Hardly a rural idyll.

 

Curious comment. 

 

The stretch I rode my bike along back during Covid certainly seemed rural and idyllic, despite there being a bus station in Basingstoke.

 

 

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Curious comment. 

 

The stretch I rode my bike along back during Covid certainly seemed rural and idyllic, despite there being a bus station in Basingstoke.

 

 

 

The point being that unrestored sections are ripe for development and may not remain rural or idyllic for ever 

[Stroudwater1]

53 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The point being that unrestored sections are ripe for development and may not remain rural or idyllic for ever 

Exactly. See the Froghall  housing planning application in 2021, recent houses just beyond Salterhebble locks on the Halifax branch, the M5 mile on the Stroudwater almost total disappearance of the Bentley canal closed in the 1960s Etc etc.

 

Anyone who thinks a canal without boats or the remote possibility of boats is likely to remain in water then they are in need of looking at the evidence all around disused canals I’m afraid.
 

[Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch]

On 05/07/2024 at 12:26, Tony Brooks said:

A point that has been tangentially discussed, but not in any depth, and that is how high a hire fee the market can bear. I have a little experience of this, in that I was involved with a large Thames hire fleet in the 60s and 70s when the river was full of hire boats from many bases, many with a fairly long season. Then came the start of cheaper package holidays and within a few years the number of boats and bases contracted massively, so today there seems to be only two larger independent hire fleets and Le Boat operating for a couple of bases. This tells me that the market for UK hire boat holidays is not as large as people think, and the ability to raise prices is limited by demand. It may well be that CaRT have decided that if the cost of a hire boat licence was significantly raised, then the effect would likely be a reduction of income as fleets sell up, and no doubt sell their sites for development.

 

I can't understand why a new, low post count member who has had a number of realities pointed out to them keeps on scratching the itch. I agree that it seems to be a straight forward whinge about being asked to pay what CaRT think the market can bear.

🥱 Argumentum ad hominem.

Edited July 7, 2024 by Naartjie - Duck Hatch