Bridgewater Canal Breach

[magnetman]

Someone looked at the accounts and they have £23 million.or something. However there was also a Bridgewater Canal Trust. 

 

It seems a little unimprobable that the persons in charge know what they are doing and can strategically steer of a financial loss. 

 

 

 

 

[Momac]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. I suggested this way back near the start of the thread.

 

All depends however, on how well capitalised the Bridgewater Canal Company turns out to be.

 

"Not very" would be my best guess.

 

 

They are part of Peel so shouldn't be too difficult to get a loan. 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Momac said:

They are part of Peel so shouldn't be too difficult to get a loan. 

 

My own impression is they are wholly owned by Peel and set up specifically in order to limit Peel's liability to zero in the event of a breach.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. I suggested this way back near the start of the thread.

 

All depends however, on how well capitalised the Bridgewater Canal Company turns out to be.

 

"Not very" would be my best guess.

 

 

This is what Tom posted in his blog

Net current liabilities refer to the current assets less current liabilities of an organisation. To have net current liabilities, the current liabilities must be larger than the current assets. This is usually because the company has very little inventories or does not give credit and therefore has no receivables. Alternatively it could indicate that the business is insolvent.]

Under fixed assets the company had as at 31 March 2024.

Tangible Assets £21,458

Investment property £17,480,000

Loans to group undertakings £5,879,250

Total £23,380,708

After Deducted Liabilities the total is £18,603,376

Cash in the bank £20,158

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. I suggested this way back near the start of the thread.

 

All depends however, on how well capitalised the Bridgewater Canal Company turns out to be.

 

"Not very" would be my best guess.

 

 

This is what Tom posted in his blog

Net current liabilities refer to the current assets less current liabilities of an organisation. To have net current liabilities, the current liabilities must be larger than the current assets. This is usually because the company has very little inventories or does not give credit and therefore has no receivables. Alternatively it could indicate that the business is insolvent.]

Under fixed assets the company had as at 31 March 2024.

Tangible Assets £21,458

Investment property £17,480,000

Loans to group undertakings £5,879,250

Total £23,380,708

After Deducted Liabilities the total is £18,603,376

Cash in the bank £20,158

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. I suggested this way back near the start of the thread.

 

All depends however, on how well capitalised the Bridgewater Canal Company turns out to be.

 

"Not very" would be my best guess.

 

 

This is what Tom posted in his blog

Net current liabilities refer to the current assets less current liabilities of an organisation. To have net current liabilities, the current liabilities must be larger than the current assets. This is usually because the company has very little inventories or does not give credit and therefore has no receivables. Alternatively it could indicate that the business is insolvent.]

Under fixed assets the company had as at 31 March 2024.

Tangible Assets £21,458

Investment property £17,480,000

Loans to group undertakings £5,879,250

Total £23,380,708

After Deducted Liabilities the total is £18,603,376

Cash in the bank £20,158

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

This is what Tom posted in his blog

Net current liabilities refer to the current assets less current liabilities of an organisation. To have net current liabilities, the current liabilities must be larger than the current assets. This is usually because the company has very little inventories or does not give credit and therefore has no receivables. Alternatively it could indicate that the business is insolvent.]

Under fixed assets the company had as at 31 March 2024.

Tangible Assets £21,458

Investment property £17,480,000

Loans to group undertakings £5,879,250

Total £23,380,708

After Deducted Liabilities the total is £18,603,376

Cash in the bank £20,158

 

All fine and dandy until you realise the "Investment property" at £17.4m is probably the canal itself. What you really need to see is a balance sheet showing "Liquid assets" of which I'd predict £20.1k at bank is probably all there is. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

My own impression is they are wholly owned by Peel and set up specifically in order to limit Peel's liability to zero in the event of a breach.

 

 

I think you are right. sorry about the multiple replies, it didn't do anything when I clicked send

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

My own impression is they are wholly owned by Peel and set up specifically in order to limit Peel's liability to zero in the event of a breach.

 

 

Is it not for furthering the company's charitable objectives

[MtB]

29 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Is it not for furthering the company's charitable objectives

 

I dunno! What do the company articles say it was set up for?

[agg221]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

The problem with trying to use contracts to exert pressure on Peel -- for example, making granting some other contract conditional on them re-opening the Bridgewater -- is that their lawyers would have a field day with this, correctly pointing out that if they have no legal obligation to re-open it then it's probably illegal on competitive grounds to put such an obligation on Peel and not their competitors.

Ian, your comment suggests that you may not be familiar with the use of social value components within contracts. This is not entirely surprising since, although they are an established (albeit relatively recent) mechanism it pretty much only applies to very large, national contracts and the flow-down of terms and conditions which arises from contracts which originate there.

 

It would indeed be illegal to structure a contract with direct terms which can be summarised as 'if Peel Holdings wins this contract they will have to re-open the Bridgewater Canal' since that would break procurement rules around fair and open competition. However, it would be perfectly legal to define a social value clause in a contract which Peel would be interested in securing which could be met by re-opening the Bridgewater canal, so long as it could also be addressed in other ways. For example, if a contract relating to operation of national deepwater port assets contained a social value clause relating to creating local amenity value and environmental value in creation of biodiversity with specific reference to freshwater environments (citing decline in the number of large, static freshwater bodies) with particular reference to connected corridors to reduce the vulnerability of at-risk species, Peel could address this (and score very highly) by re-opening the Bridgewater whereas other bidders may find it more challenging. You could for example address this by committing large sums of money or corporate volunteering to the Montgomery, or the recreation of wetland habitats across large acreages of former gravel pits, but the cost to achieve equivalent impact would be significantly higher.

 

This does not guarantee a particular outcome, but some strong signposting is often involved. As you may surmise, I -do- play in this space. Not sure if you spotted my bit of fusion reactor in another thread? These contracts always include a social value component, even though the primary function is engineering R&D. We once lost a contract which explicitly specified our own, patented technology because our social value component was so poor that this took our score below someone else whose technical score didn't even include the right technology! For clarity, I am not suggesting that I have any particular insight that this is how things will be done, more suggesting that is a pathway which could arise, depending on the outcome of a lot of conversations which you and I will not be party to.

Alec

Edited January 11 by agg221

[dmr]

Peel have, ar have had, some big property development plans. One was to transform the entire Liverpool waterfront into a modern high rise mega city (This may have been a factor in Liverpool losing its world heritage status).

 

If Peel want to get bold planning applications through it might help them if they are a credible company and so they might decide that the bad publicity from the abandonment of a major public asset like a canal is not in their interest.  We can hope.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Momac said:

 The Bridgewater Canal Company which is part of Peel Group. They say they are a statutory body responsible for the navigation and maintenance of the canal . If so does this not mean the Bridgewater Canal Company has to reinstate the canal?

 

 

https://bridgewatercanal.co.uk/about-us/

 

 

 

 

 

The simple answer is -- not necessarily... 😉

 

For example CART are responsible for maintaining the "remainder" waterways, but there's nothing that legally says they have to keep them open.

 

It all depends on what the terms were on which Peel took over the canal and then moved it to the Trust -- if this says they legally have to keep it open then they'll have to reinstate if, if it doesn't they won't. 

 

Or they could just wash their hands of the whole thing and say it's the Trust's problem not theirs -- and if the Trust has to do the repairs but can't afford them, they can go bust.

 

Anybody know?

[magnetman]

I consulted with my self and to be honest with me I don't think this is going to be rebuilt. 

 

 

[dmr]

46 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I consulted with my self and to be honest with me I don't think this is going to be rebuilt. 

 

 

Was that a consultation or a heated argument ? 😀.

 

At some point there might be a failure on a canal somewhere that is so huge that there is just not enough money to fix it. We will have to accept that. Its like when whole cliffs collapse and the houses just fall into the sea.

 

I hope this one does get fixed as without it a significant length of canal and three tunnels will also no longer be worth maintaining.

[Cheshire cat]

A meeting was held in the local pub this morning. A representative of the Bridgewater canal company explained to the stranded boaters and affected farmers how they would build coffer dams and rewater the sections where boats are stranded. He was asked about the rebuilding of the channel. Unsurprisingly he declined to provide an answer. 

 

 

[Momac]

22 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

....build coffer dams and rewater the sections where boats are stranded.

This has to be the first step regardless of whether the breached section of canal is reinstated or not. I should be good to hear that initial action is being planned.

It's way too early to properly understand the cost for a full reinstatement. Surveys and site investigations will be required to inform a design solution. I would say the best part of a year required just to get to a full engineered and costed solution including proper consideration of options to find the most economical solution.

 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Or they could just wash their hands of the whole thing and say it's the Trust's problem not theirs -- and if the Trust has to do the repairs but can't afford them, they can go bust.

 

What trust?

 

AIUI the canal is owned by the Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd. A private Ltd Co. It would be interesting to find out who the shareholders are but not being a PLC I don't think that info is in the public domain. The directors will be though, FWIW. 

[agg221]

33 minutes ago, MtB said:

AIUI the canal is owned by the Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd. A private Ltd Co. It would be interesting to find out who the shareholders are but not being a PLC I don't think that info is in the public domain. The directors will be though, FWIW. 

There are five current directors, of whom John Whittaker and John Peter Whittaker are two.

Peel L&P Land Holdings Limited is the person with significant control, which is essentially equivalent to being the major shareholder.

 

Peel L&P Land Holdings Limited has four directors. These are the same directors as Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd, minus John Peter Whittaker.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Property Limited.

 

Peel L&P Property Ltd has four directors. Three of these are the same as Peel L&P Holdings Ltd, including John Whittaker.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Property Holdings Limited.

 

Peel L&P Property Holdings Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Property Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Investments Holdings Limited.

 

Peel L&P Investments Holdings Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Property Holdings Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Investments (U.K.) Limited.

 

Peel L&P Investments (U.K.) Ltd has the same four directors as Peel Investments Holdings Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Limited.

 

Peel L&P Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Investments (U.K.) Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel Land and Property Holdings Limited.

 

Peel Land and Property Holdings Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Limited.

 

Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd has the same four directors as Peel Land and Property Holdings Limited.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Limited.

 

Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Ltd has the same four directors as Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd.

The persons with significant control are:

Mr John Whittaker

Christopher Eves

Mrs Sheila Eastwood

 

Hope that answers the question!

 

Alec

 

 

 

 

Alec

[magnetman]

So basically the geyser is going to put his hand in his pocket and chuck 10 million quid at a 200 year old canal which has already fallen down twice. 

 

And I was like "Yeah yeah yeah"

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So basically the geyser is going to put his hand in his pocket and chuck 10 million quid at a 200 year old canal which has already fallen down twice. 

 

And I was like "Yeah yeah yeah"

 

The thing about Peel is the sheer size of the enterprise if you look at their entry on Wikipedia, especially for a private Ltd Co not a PLC.  £10m to fix up the canal will be loose change for them but they'll still need a firm reason to spend it.

 

They obviously have the inside track on infrastructure development so losing that would hurt them badly. Consequently I think agg221 is bang on the money regarding soft power persuading them to stump up the money, in order for the social gain to protect their primary income stream.

Edited January 11 by MtB

[David Mack]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

Consequently I think agg221 is bang on the money regarding soft power persuading them to stump up the money, in order for the social gain to protect their primary income stream.

I'm not so sure. A lot of Peel's business is developing their own land, so no public sector contracts involved and no assessment of social gain. And when they are competing for projects, the other bidders won't have a breached canal, so Peel will just say its an unfortunate Act of God which has affected aging infrastructure, but which is irrelevant to the competition.

My guess is that they will fund the immediate tasks of refloating the beached craft, installing long term dams across the ends of the unaffected sections, making the collapsed area safe, probably reinstating a pedestrian route to link the towpaths either side and maybe a water transfer pipe, and perhaps contributing to the costs of repair to land/ property/ infrastructure downstream affected by the additional flooding from the breach.

And then they will wait for someone else to lead the restoration effort. If forced legally to reopen the navigation they will let the canal's owner, the Bridgewater Canal Company, go bust. And that will then raise questions about what happens to the rest of the canal.

Maybe they will try to broker a CRT takeover to shed the responsibility.

[magnetman]

I see it is 260 years old not 200. 

 

Obsolete. 

It is just land. The Peel company makes endless amounts of money from their land. Unless this bit is turning a profit there is no motive to sort it out. 

 

Is it a public right of way? If not then why bother with it. 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel this story may be one of those things which is capable of indicating a general trend. 

 

It seems somehow symbolic of the ageing problems faced by all the other canals.

 

 At the end of the day canals are actually just areas of land upon which people once thought it was a good idea to build elaborate structures in order to make Boats float and go around, up, down or through hilly terrain.

Embankments will never work because nature wants to take it away but for the profit at the time its worth doing. 

 

 

 

 

 

Which does make one wonder why it was fixed the last time. 

[dmr]

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I'm not so sure. A lot of Peel's business is developing their own land, so no public sector contracts involved and no assessment of social gain. And when they are competing for projects, the other bidders won't have a breached canal, so Peel will just say its an unfortunate Act of God which has affected aging infrastructure, but which is irrelevant to the competition.

My guess is that they will fund the immediate tasks of refloating the beached craft, installing long term dams across the ends of the unaffected sections, making the collapsed area safe, probably reinstating a pedestrian route to link the towpaths either side and maybe a water transfer pipe, and perhaps contributing to the costs of repair to land/ property/ infrastructure downstream affected by the additional flooding from the breach.

And then they will wait for someone else to lead the restoration effort. If forced legally to reopen the navigation they will let the canal's owner, the Bridgewater Canal Company, go bust. And that will then raise questions about what happens to the rest of the canal.

Maybe they will try to broker a CRT takeover to shed the responsibility.

 

but as I said earlier, CRT have been offered the canal but without any of its income generating assets, so a broken canal without any assets is even less attractive. A good outcome would be for CRT to take on the canal and somebody provide a big cash injection to fund the repair, but at the moment the government can't even fund the NHS and other essential services.  If every boater in the country donated £300 it could be done, but as this forum often shows, most boaters don't understand anything North of Birmingham 😀

[magnetman]

7 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

but as I said earlier, CRT have been offered the canal but without any of its income generating assets, so a broken canal without any assets is even less attractive. A good outcome would be for CRT to take on the canal and somebody provide a big cash injection to fund the repair, but at the moment the government can't even fund the NHS and other essential services.  If every boater in the country donated £300 it could be done, but as this forum often shows, most boaters don't understand anything North of Birmingham 😀

This is why it is so important to engage the masses. 

 

It might be £300 each for boaters but its 15p each if everyone pays. 

 

 

 

This is why the CRT are going to make changes to attract more government funding. 

 

As someone once wrote on here "I do not like it when other people play with my trainset but I understand that without them I would not have a trainset". 

 

Wise words. 

[David Mack]

11 minutes ago, dmr said:

but as I said earlier, CRT have been offered the canal but without any of its income generating assets, so a broken canal without any assets is even less attractive.

Up to now CRT have had no incentive to take on the canal, and Peel have had no incentive to provide a dowry. That has all changed now. 

Peel are looking at a £2m+ repair bill. If they can't wriggle out of that they may be willing to offer something significant to be rid of the liability. CRT will of course plead poverty, but if the various (small p) political interests can be lined up, along with some third party offers of a little money, there is perhaps a chance that government might be persuaded to provide CRT with an improved financial settlement if they will take on the Bridgewater.

 

And from the Bridgewater Canal Company Limited's Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2024:

[BilgePump]

9 hours ago, agg221 said:

There are five current directors, of whom John Whittaker and John Peter Whittaker are two.

Peel L&P Land Holdings Limited is the person with significant control, which is essentially equivalent to being the major shareholder.

 

Peel L&P Land Holdings Limited has four directors. These are the same directors as Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd, minus John Peter Whittaker.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Property Limited.

 

Peel L&P Property Ltd has four directors. Three of these are the same as Peel L&P Holdings Ltd, including John Whittaker.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Property Holdings Limited.

 

Peel L&P Property Holdings Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Property Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Investments Holdings Limited.

 

Peel L&P Investments Holdings Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Property Holdings Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Investments (U.K.) Limited.

 

Peel L&P Investments (U.K.) Ltd has the same four directors as Peel Investments Holdings Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Limited.

 

Peel L&P Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Investments (U.K.) Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel Land and Property Holdings Limited.

 

Peel Land and Property Holdings Ltd has the same four directors as Peel L&P Ltd.

The person with significant control is Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Limited.

 

Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd has the same four directors as Peel Land and Property Holdings Limited.

The person with significant control is Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Limited.

 

Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Ltd has the same four directors as Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd.

The persons with significant control are:

Mr John Whittaker

Christopher Eves

Mrs Sheila Eastwood

 

Hope that answers the question!

 

Alec

 

 

 

 

Alec

That's ten company layers deep! Even hell only has nine levels, guess we now know that after treachery (ninth) the tenth is Peel. I've no faith at all that they will do the right thing and repair this breach. Their history as a company is that under John Whittaker (now a billionaire) they dug out their family quarries in the sixties then filled in the exhausted quarries with waste landfill, then moved into property acquisition and development, the Peel bit comes from Peel Mills in Bury, bought in the 1970s. Quite a mercenary organisation by reputation.