Residents living near the River Soar in Loughborough, Leics., say some of the rubbish-filled wrecks were dumped months ago.

Shocking pictures so the ruined remains of the crafts lying on their sides in the canal which is home to birds and wildlife.

Locals and dogwalkers are demanding action to remove the boats and prevent the area becoming an area for fly-tipping.

 

 

 

Resident Christopher Spence, 50, said: “It’s not acceptable that these boats have just been left here to rot for months.

“It’s like a boat graveyard and it’s bad for wildlife as well as making the place look bad.

“I am worried that if they aren’t moved soon then the area will attract fly-tippers. No one seems to take any action.”

One old wrecked boat has been dumped in the town’s smart basin marina, with locals saying it has been there for at least six months.

 

An abandoned boat in Bishop Meadow Mooring, Loughborough. (Pix via Tom Maddick / SWNS)

 

An abandoned boat in Bishop Meadow Lock, Loughborough. (Pix via Tom Maddick / SWNS)

Bar worker Hannah Atkinson, 24, said: “I pass the boats every day and it just looks depressing seeing them just rotting away.

“It’s like a boat graveyard. It’s sad because the canals are full of rubbish but no one seems to want to step up and do anything about it.”

The Canal and River Trust, a charity which looks after 2,000 (3,218km) of waterways in England and Wales, says it costs up to £10,000 to safely remove one boat.

 

A spokesperson said: “While we can’t share specific details on each one, we’d like to assure local people that we are in the process of getting them removed.

“This can be a lengthy process and, unfortunately, we are often left in a situation where boats are abandoned and we have to organise and pay for the recovery ourselves.”

Disgusting!! Probably dumped liveaboard boats? Should be made illegal to live on boats, bloody tax dodgers!! 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

An abandoned boat in Bishop Meadow Lock

Blimey, i thought those Thames locks were big, can't even see the gates on that one!😬

Hardly a beauty spot.

Yeh, lots of this happening all over the system. CaRT needs to get the law/bylaws changed just like abandoned/unlicensed cars on the road, remove and crush. These boats are costing CaRT £1000’s that could be better spent elsewhere.

2 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Yeh, lots of this happening all over the system. CaRT needs to get the law/bylaws changed just like abandoned/unlicensed cars on the road, remove and crush. These boats are costing CaRT £1000’s that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

The obvious fix would be for CRT to demand a removal deposit of say £10k (their estimated maximum removal cost) for each boat on the system, refundable when you no longer hold a licence for a boat. Of course they would need to have zero tolerance for any licenced boats for it to work though.

10 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Yeh, lots of this happening all over the system. CaRT needs to get the law/bylaws changed just like abandoned/unlicensed cars on the road, remove and crush. These boats are costing CaRT £1000’s that could be better spent elsewhere.

But who would pay? I suspect these boats are unlicensed and the last known licence holder will swear blind that he sold the boat some time ago, and its not his problem.

43 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The obvious fix would be for CRT to demand a removal deposit of say £10k (their estimated maximum removal cost) for each boat on the system, refundable when you no longer hold a licence for a boat. Of course they would need to have zero tolerance for any licenced boats for it to work though.

Look at the photos, these are sunken boats, totally different from unlicensed floating boats. No need to find out who owns them, class them as a navigation hazard. Remove from the navigation, owner has 30 days to reclaim, if not crush👍

 

37 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But who would pay? I suspect these boats are unlicensed and the last known licence holder will swear blind that he sold the boat some time ago, and its not his problem.

Please read above. Far cheaper to just remove than to go through court action, if the owner wants it back he has to pay.CaRT needs to get hard.👍

I suspect CRT's costs in raising these craft, craning them out and disposing of them (presumably to landfill) will come in at not much less than the £10k figure mentioned.

Just now, David Mack said:

I suspect CRT's costs in raising these craft, craning them out and disposing of them (presumably to landfill) will come in at not much less than the £10k figure mentioned.

So do they just leave them all over the system? 

23 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

So do they just leave them all over the system? 

It's what they've done so far. The trick would be to sort out anything unlicenced once and for all, would cost a few quid but if they didn't bother with unnecessary court orders and cleared out and scrapped any boat not showing a licence (never mind what some clown said in the past, it's still a legal requirement), a couple of days after they hoicked it out, it would probably cost less than going through the courts twice.

If CRT can't be bothered to chase for licences, they aren't going to waste scarce resources on boats that will sooner or later rot away to nothing.

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

But who would pay? I suspect these boats are unlicensed and the last known licence holder will swear blind that he sold the boat some time ago, and its not his problem.

 

In which case it is now the problem of the supposed new purchaser who has failed to tell CRT they now own it and failed to licence it. 

 

So the imaginary new owner deserves to lose it under such circumstances, Shirley? 

I was very surprised when I first heard this story regarding the boat in Loughborough Basin. We were there at the end of July - twice. At that time the boat was definitely being lived on and although it looked a bit of a mess it was nowhere near sinking (or so it seemed) see https://nbalchemy.blogspot.com/2025/07/kegworth.htm

 

We saw the two at Bishops Meadow on the way up to Leicester - see https://nbalchemy.blogspot.com/2025/07/pillings-lock.html - and they were sufficiently unusual that we commented on them. Both seemed to have been sunken for a while, although the speed at which the one in the Basin seems to have deteriorated, it is hard to judge.

 

For CaRT. as has been said, it is expensive and time consuming to deal with an abandoned boat (it is not always easy to be certain  that something has been abandoned!) In the case of a boat that is not causing an impassable obstruction or is otherwise unsafe, CaRT have limited powers until various legal stages have been completed. That process probably costs as much as actually removing the vessel. I believe that CaRT have said that they will generally leave a sunken boat that is not an obstruction almost indefinitely as that is the cheapest option. Those who complain about it spoiling the view should stand up and call for better funding and not vote for anyone who just wants to cut expenditure. In my experience it is rarely boaters who complain (in many cases there may well be a sense of there but for the grace of God go I)

And don't forget how many people put obstacles in the path of removals, all of which prevent boats being taken and crushed.  Court dates, resources, contactors all required.   I would say conservatively that each boat to lift and shift (inc all background process) is c 7-10k a pop. 

 

Inevitably the person who owns the boat pleads poverty, various illness or mental health concerns or simply refuses to acknowledge they do and move on, hiding, not wanting to be found. 

14 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

The obvious fix would be for CRT to demand a removal deposit of say £10k (their estimated maximum removal cost) for each boat on the system, refundable when you no longer hold a licence for a boat. Of course they would need to have zero tolerance for any licenced boats for it to work though.

That is not an obvious fix, and if you think even 50% of canal users have 10k spare you must be dreaming, crikey, mooring and license fees went up a couple of percent and people were screaming about lack of money, for sure they would handover 10k.  And just think of the cost trying to administer that scheme.   

 

There are according to google 35,000 boats on the canal -  35,000 x 10,000 = 350,000,000

 

So CRT would need to bank 350M.  

 

In context, the government over a 10 year period, will give a grant of 400M for running the entire canal system.

 

The more obvious fix would be that if everyone does have 10k to spare, heck, even 5k to spare then the costs for boating should rise by 25-50% to meet the demand required.  

 

 

Edited October 3, 20251 yr by Creaking Gate

If the locals don't like looking at sunken boats, they can always club together and pay to have them removed. Insisting that everything you don't like should be cleared up by someone else (litter, dog poo) without any cost to oneself is an endemic British trait. Douglas Adams defined it as the "Someone Else's Problem" syndrome.

54 minutes ago, Creaking Gate said:

And don't forget how many people put obstacles in the path of removals, all of which prevent boats being taken and crushed.  Court dates, resources, contactors all required.   I would say conservatively that each boat to lift and shift (inc all background process) is c 7-10k a pop. 

 

Inevitably the person who owns the boat pleads poverty, various illness or mental health concerns or simply refuses to acknowledge they do and move on, hiding, not wanting to be found. 

That is not an obvious fix, and if you think even 50% of canal users have 10k spare you must be dreaming, crikey, mooring and license fees went up a couple of percent and people were screaming about lack of money, for sure they would handover 10k.  And just think of the cost trying to administer that scheme.   

 

There are according to google 35,000 boats on the canal -  35,000 x 10,000 = 350,000,000

 

So CRT would need to bank 350M.  

 

In context, the government over a 10 year period, will give a grant of 400M for running the entire canal system.

 

The more obvious fix would be that if everyone does have 10k to spare, heck, even 5k to spare then the costs for boating should rise by 25-50% to meet the demand required.  

 

 

 

And how would that deter the unlicensed boats?

 

The first step surely has to be zero tolerated unlicensed boats.

Edited October 3, 20251 yr by cuthound

£55k to remove boats in Bath!

 

Council pursues recovery of £55k public funds for sunken boat removals | Newsroom | Bath & North East Somerset Council

Edited October 3, 20251 yr by Tim Lewis

Its no good suing someone with no money 

1 hour ago, Creaking Gate said:

So CRT would need to bank 350M.  

 

No they wouldn't. 

 

In accordance with the principle behind 'fractional reserve banking', they could rightly assume a high proportion of boaters in any given year (say 90%) would not want or need their deposits back so 90% of that £350m could be spent immediately on fixing up the maintenance backlog.

 

Even then, the new boaters buying the boats that sellers are getting a refund on, would need to cough up their own, new, £10k deposit. So the impact on CRT cashflow of refunding deposits would be near-zero. AND CRT get the benefit of the savings flowing from being more on top of the maintenance demands. 

 

Glad that's all sorted out now. When can the scheme start?! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specialist contractors and gear for a day to refloat and tow to relocate each one to somewhere that a lift can be effected

Crane to lift, truck to transport

Removal of boat from truck and professional scrapping

 

Ouch! Not cheap

 

You can have sympathy for people with a serious illness, passed away, mental health issues taken over etc and the boat has lapsed into an unlicensed and dilapidated state where they have no means of sorting it out and circumstances take over.

 

It's those who are quite healthy and stable but have unlicensed abandoned scrap boats under their belt, to the expense of everyone else, that get my goat. Licence, BSS and insurance. Make sure your boat won't sink. If it does, it's your responsibility to lift and recover/scrap it.

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Its no good suing someone with no money 

 

Hence my suggestion of a refundable deposit.

There was a series on tv a while ago where  in one episode ,CRT  engaged contractors to dispose of a small GRP cruiser from somewhere near Northwich,Cheshire. The boat was taken to a local marina (after re-floating) and a slipway used to haul the boat onto a trailer . The contractors had driven up from Portsmouth(?) with the trailer and 4x4. They then returned down south and the boat was lifted off the trailer and immediately crushed and dropped in a skip, presumed destined for land fill. I understand that these contractors will be the CRTs preferred option but I am quite sure there would be organisations much more local who could dispose of derelicts in a more economic  (and legal!) way.  I am aware that even 15 years ago it was costing CRT around 8k for small boat disposal.

 

19 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Hence my suggestion of a refundable deposit.

 

Seconded.  Would get all those Rodney boats off the cut too....

 

 

<tongue-in-cheek smiley>

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 20251 yr by MtB
Speeling!

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

Hence my suggestion of a refundable deposit.

Rather than that, add £100 a year to the licence fee to be returned to the owner when the boat is sold and, more importantly, relicenced or registered (with proof) as scrapped or off CRT waters. In the latter case, it would pay the owner for the scrappage. 

3 hours ago, billh said:

There was a series on tv a while ago where  in one episode ,CRT  engaged contractors to dispose of a small GRP cruiser from somewhere near Northwich,Cheshire. The boat was taken to a local marina (after re-floating) and a slipway used to haul the boat onto a trailer . The contractors had driven up from Portsmouth(?) with the trailer and 4x4. They then returned down south and the boat was lifted off the trailer and immediately crushed and dropped in a skip, presumed destined for land fill. I understand that these contractors will be the CRTs preferred option but I am quite sure there would be organisations much more local who could dispose of derelicts in a more economic  (and legal!) way.  I am aware that even 15 years ago it was costing CRT around 8k for small boat disposal.

 

From personal experience, if you take the DIY route, it's possible to get two little GRP cruisers cut up and flat packed into a big skip. Grinders, circular saws and proper masks