CaRT Funding Debate

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Tonka said:

And you honestly expect the canals to get better if they do as you say.

 

The country is on its knees

 

Yes, we in the boating community have the engineers and labour needed, we are already working without CRT approval in many places with local residents, farmers and anyone else that wants to see the waterways maintained and navigable. We need the power to slip so that we can work unimpeded. 

 

DEFRA will retain the statutory duty on waterways, harbours, ports etc and have to undertake it, the statutory duty does not die with CRT (who aren't respecting it anyways, to their own financial detrimental as their lack of ppms breach embankments all over the place causing way more than the ppms themselves)

35 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

How come they didn't use sec 106 to argue against having to dredge?

Although sec 106 is the remedy it's a very expensive and time consuming thing to pursue, John Gould did and Cabot cruising club in Bristol and it went all the way to the house of lords. Very very very narrowly retained the Bristol to London navigation. This is what annoys me is that CRT can go to the secretary of state and adjust the dimensions of the Kennet and Avon.. stop advertising it as 3ft 7in and be honest that most parts are 2ft deep. Publish the surveys, publish the dredging priority trigger excel (I managed to foi this) make clear that the party line of 'there are maintenance issues on the k and a' is a lie. Also don't say there are no issues to my solicitor and then tell one of your colleagues that there are in an email that I subject access request and use as evidence haha

 

Thing is I'm not looking to change the world I'll leave that to the NBTA.. I'm pretty comfy in my Bristol corner. It did screw with my business plan a little but I've included Swansea and Cardiff into my biz areas which offsets the lack of access to the canal. I enjoy CRT being on the backfoot and I tend not to hear from them, I do my part in labour which is as much as the license every month.. stalemate 

 

There's hope one day they utilise me properly and we become better friends, they are like an angry guy at the pub.. maybe they don't have in their trousers what they think they do and are worried about people realising..

[IanD]

Do you think CART should spend more of their funding tracking down and prosecuting sh*t-dumpers then?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2yr1ne5ljo

'Action needed as people dump human faeces in canal'

"Ben Cottam, Wales and South West director for the Canal and Rivers Trust, said funding remains a constraint.

"Our powers can be limited in certain areas, so that's where, in terms of pollution of the canal we will work with Environment Agency colleagues or colleagues in local government," he added."

Edited January 28 by IanD

[Tonka]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

Do you think CART should spend more of their funding tracking down and prosecuting sh*t-dumpers then?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2yr1ne5ljo

'Action needed as people dump human faeces in canal'

"Ben Cottam, Wales and South West director for the Canal and Rivers Trust, said funding remains a constraint.

"Our powers can be limited in certain areas, so that's where, in terms of pollution of the canal we will work with Environment Agency colleagues or colleagues in local government," he added."

Well you have people saying that it is OK to flick dog doings into the canal so why is not OK to put human doings into the canal.

 

Before you answer my dog doings go into the correct place and not the canal

Edited January 28 by Tonka
Extra info

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Well you have people saying that it is OK to flick dog doings into the canal so why is not OK to put human doings into the canal.

 

Before you answer my dog doings go into the correct place and not the canal

Whoever these people are, they're wrong -- as are the sh*t-dumpers... 😞 

 

People say lots of stupid things, especially on t'internet when they know they're not likely to get punched in the face as a result... 😉 

 

P.S. What's "the correct place"?

Edited January 28 by IanD

[Tonka]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Whoever these people are, they're wrong -- as are the sh*t-dumpers... 😞 

 

People say lots of stupid things, especially on t'internet when they know they're not likely to get punched in the face as a result... 😉 

 

P.S. What's "the correct place"?

Well the correct place varies as to where you are. Forestry England state that you can flick it into the undergrowth but obviously that is not true when in central Birmingham so it's bagged up to be disposed into a dog waste bin.

 

Not hung in a tree which is stupid. Why put it in a bag Which won't rot then hang it

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, IanD said:

Do you think CART should spend more of their funding tracking down and prosecuting sh*t-dumpers then?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2yr1ne5ljo

'Action needed as people dump human faeces in canal'

"Ben Cottam, Wales and South West director for the Canal and Rivers Trust, said funding remains a constraint.

"Our powers can be limited in certain areas, so that's where, in terms of pollution of the canal we will work with Environment Agency colleagues or colleagues in local government," he added."

Why is that a funding priority when the canal walls are collapsing.. let them poop in the poop water for now we have more pressing needs. CRT should be single minded and focused in their approach and get on top of the maintenance duty, they have no statutory requirement to stop crusties pooping in a bucket and chucking it out the window but once everything else is done send the goons down.. till then I need them in the silt. 

[Tonka]

43 minutes ago, Wildling said:

Why is that a funding priority when the canal walls are collapsing.. let them poop in the poop water for now we have more pressing needs. CRT should be single minded and focused in their approach and get on top of the maintenance duty, they have no statutory requirement to stop crusties pooping in a bucket and chucking it out the window but once everything else is done send the goons down.. till then I need them in the silt. 

What is a priority to you isn't necessarily so to other people though. Why should money be poured into dredging the Kennet and Avon canal when 80 % of the boaters on it never move.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, Wildling said:

 

I fought the CRT in court and the decision made was that they should pay my licenses until they dredge the Kennet and Avon canal to 3ft 7in under their duty sec 105 transport act.

Can you provide a reference to the Court judgement?

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Can you provide a reference to the Court judgement?

Can't wait...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tonka said:

What is a priority to you isn't necessarily so to other people though. Why should money be poured into dredging the Kennet and Avon canal when 80 % of the boaters on it never move.

The navigational safety and continuity is the life of the inland waterways system. If you do not have a vessel that moves I don't care about you and you are not on my radar. The only job the CRT have a statutory duty to do is to maintain navigation, if not they may as well fill them in.

 

Interested in the 80% for my records could you source that please? Not a figure I've heard before 

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Can you provide a reference to the Court judgement?

No judgement they folded as soon as they finished mediation and told me that I'm 'no longer in their jurisdiction'.. I sent them a picture of me in Bath and I got 'further emails will be sent as vexatious and not replied to'.. I email them every year to ask them when we are going to court and wind them up a little. Essentially I'm person non grata to them. 

 

If you wanna see all the emails back and forth, mediation, pages of evidence Inc dredging priority trigger, surveys, complaints etc give me a shout by message with what you are looking for. I would highly recommend doing everything to avoid annoying them unless they back you into a corner and come after you as they are a real pain to deal with.. I had to call in the SRA at one point to force them into mediation 

32 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Can't wait...

I'm still waiting for the court bundle three years later.. in mediation they wanted to pay me 5k to move my boat to Bristol and then ban me from the k and a despite the vessel fitting happily the dimensions they publish online. Me and my solicitor said okay let's go to court and prove that I have a cruising craft and the canal is too shallow, I put costs against them for loss of earnings as I pull a really decent wage on paye.. nothing. If you have any particular interest let me know and I'll publish what you need

[Mike Coombes]

1 hour ago, Wildling said:

The navigational safety and continuity is the life of the inland waterways system. If you do not have a vessel that moves I don't care about you and you are not on my radar. The only job the CRT have a statutory duty to do is to maintain navigation, if not they may as well fill them in.

 

Interested in the 80% for my records could you source that please? Not a figure I've heard before 

No judgement they folded as soon as they finished mediation and told me that I'm 'no longer in their jurisdiction'.. I sent them a picture of me in Bath and I got 'further emails will be sent as vexatious and not replied to'.. I email them every year to ask them when we are going to court and wind them up a little. Essentially I'm person non grata to them. 

 

If you wanna see all the emails back and forth, mediation, pages of evidence Inc dredging priority trigger, surveys, complaints etc give me a shout by message with what you are looking for. I would highly recommend doing everything to avoid annoying them unless they back you into a corner and come after you as they are a real pain to deal with.. I had to call in the SRA at one point to force them into mediation 

I'm still waiting for the court bundle three years later.. in mediation they wanted to pay me 5k to move my boat to Bristol and then ban me from the k and a despite the vessel fitting happily the dimensions they publish online. Me and my solicitor said okay let's go to court and prove that I have a cruising craft and the canal is too shallow, I put costs against them for loss of earnings as I pull a really decent wage on paye.. nothing. If you have any particular interest let me know and I'll publish what you need

 

You are completely delusional to attempt to use a three foot seven draugh sea/river boat on a non Ship canal. IMHO you are a $H1t stirrer of the first water. And I dont mean when dragging the canal bottom..................

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Mike Coombes said:

 

You are completely delusional to attempt to use a three foot seven draugh sea/river boat on a non Ship canal. IMHO you are a $H1t stirrer of the first water. And I dont mean when dragging the canal bottom..................

I'm not, I was using a 2ft 9in draft and 9ft beam cruising craft on a canal with statutory dimensions (which the CRT can ask the secretary of state to amend) of 3ft 7in draft and aprox 13.5ft beam (can't remember exactly the beam they did amend it when they built semington lock as a banana shape and trapped toggenburg(now juggernaut) who raised a stink and then I believe quit the canal system in protest, which is a shame as that barge did some serious travel)

 

And more importantly I now don't do that, and had to change my biz plan range and the amount of hulls I could refit to liveaboards. Cause I couldn't ethically sell a deeper drafted vessel to a customer and then let them experience the same realisation as me that the canals are not dredged properly.

 

Before I left Brightlingsea I contacted CRT up to regional manager level and asked (on recorded calls heh) them to give me a nod or a hint or let me know if there were any navigational issues cause I'd heard it wasn't up to spec in some places. Could have done the south coast, lost contracts because it took me so long to get that vessel back. They had the guile to tow the party line that the canals is 'dredged to spec and there are no maintenance issues on the Kennet and avon'

Edited January 28 by Wildling

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, Mike Coombes said:

 

You are completely delusional to attempt to use a three foot seven draugh sea/river boat on a non Ship canal. IMHO you are a $H1t stirrer of the first water. And I dont mean when dragging the canal bottom..................

 

whilst I don't agree with his methods or attitudes, he is certainly correct that neither BW or C&RT have actually achieved / met their own dredging standards.

 

 

Line	SAP_NAME	Type		Future Dimensions Draft Document 1998	BW Dredging Standards Document 2000	MOC Dimensions Navigation channel maint.  standards 2006	Hydro team proposed MOC dimensions 2010
106	Kennet & Avon Canal - 1. Reading to Tyle Mill	River
107	Kennet & Avon Canal - 2. Tyle Mill to Bath	River		7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10
108	Kennet & Avon Canal - 3. Bath to Hanham	River		7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

whilst I don't agree with his methods or attitudes, he is certainly correct that neither BW or C&RT have actually achieved / met their own dredging standards.

 

 

Line	SAP_NAME	Type		Future Dimensions Draft Document 1998	BW Dredging Standards Document 2000	MOC Dimensions Navigation channel maint.  standards 2006	Hydro team proposed MOC dimensions 2010
106	Kennet & Avon Canal - 1. Reading to Tyle Mill	River
107	Kennet & Avon Canal - 2. Tyle Mill to Bath	River		7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10
108	Kennet & Avon Canal - 3. Bath to Hanham	River		7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30

 

Which is hardly surprising given their funding shortfall, and that fixing broken paddles and gates and breaches is more important in the short-term than less-visible dredging... 😉 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

whilst I don't agree with his methods or attitudes, he is certainly correct that neither BW or C&RT have actually achieved / met their own dredging standards.

 

 

Line	SAP_NAME	Type		Future Dimensions Draft Document 1998	BW Dredging Standards Document 2000	MOC Dimensions Navigation channel maint.  standards 2006	Hydro team proposed MOC dimensions 2010
106	Kennet & Avon Canal - 1. Reading to Tyle Mill	River
107	Kennet & Avon Canal - 2. Tyle Mill to Bath	River		7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10	7.60 x 1.10
108	Kennet & Avon Canal - 3. Bath to Hanham	River		7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30	7.60 x 1.30

Let me show you some gold! An excel document showing exactly what parts are out of spec 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dredging_priority_trigger_data#incoming-2553705

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

Which is hardly surprising given their funding shortfall, and that fixing broken paddles and gates and breaches is more important in the short-term than less-visible dredging... 😉 

I have the report from handover from BW. Tonnage, toxic reports, locations.. they have only ever spot dredged.

 

They have consistently mismanaged the system for years and now the problems are affecting navigation and causing breaches which cost even more than if they had done the work 

 

They agreed to privatise and do the job cheaper than BW and become funding neutral, they failed, it's done, stop acting as if the charity status meant anything more than subsidising the govs statutory duties 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Wildling said:

Let me show you some gold! An excel document showing exactly what parts are out of spec 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dredging_priority_trigger_data#incoming-2553705

 

Those are commonly referred to documents.

 

I had similar problems on the river Trent where C&RTs own dredging standards book shows that Meadow Lane to Cromwell lock will be dedged to 2.0mts  (6' 6") and Cromwell Lock to Gainsborough dredged to 1.8mts (6')

 

I draw ~5' 6" and often 'hit the bottom'.

 

Try asking C&RT for their "MOC, Dimensions, Navigation Channel Maintenance Standards"

 

[Tear Up The Plan]

👋

Earlier I wondered if there is anything like a pro-canal constituency / lobby with sufficient gravitas to so move the right minister?  The interwebs inform me that an entity called Fund Britain’s Waterways (?) was stood up a couple of years ago to do just this. Is this credible? Does it work - as in can it seize ministerial / cabinet level attention?

[Phoenix_V]

On 28/01/2026 at 09:00, Arthur Marshall said:

Are they? Is that including necesary additional fees and charges as well as licences? Comparative levels of central or commercial support are also relevant. 

Examples, of course, would be useful as opposed to just unsupported statements.

Heres one https://www.visuris.be/waterwegenvergunning     to save you reading all through a 10m boat is 174 euros/year

Edited January 31 by Phoenix_V

[IanD]

22 hours ago, Tear Up The Plan said:

👋

Earlier I wondered if there is anything like a pro-canal constituency / lobby with sufficient gravitas to so move the right minister?  The interwebs inform me that an entity called Fund Britain’s Waterways (?) was stood up a couple of years ago to do just this. Is this credible? Does it work - as in can it seize ministerial / cabinet level attention?

FBW has got support from quite a few directions, but not all -- the NBTA for example, who make a lot of noise but don't agree with some of what FBW say...

[Tear Up The Plan]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

FBW has got support from quite a few directions, but not all -- the NBTA for example, who make a lot of noise but don't agree with some of what FBW say...

I see. 
 

Apologies from Norman Newguy for asking what may be sandbox-level questions … but isn’t that a bit Pythonesque in the sense of the People’s Front of Canals v the Canal People’s Front?

 

A distant observer might think that, given the canals’ vulnerability to parlous funding, it would be in the interests of everyone who has an interest in this to unite in a collective effort to ensure their survival and continued navigable viability. 

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, Tear Up The Plan said:

I see. 
 

Apologies from Norman Newguy for asking what may be sandbox-level questions … but isn’t that a bit Pythonesque in the sense of the People’s Front of Canals v the Canal People’s Front?

 

A distant observer might think that, given the canals’ vulnerability to parlous funding, it would be in the interests of everyone who has an interest in this to unite in a collective effort to ensure their survival and continued navigable viability. 

Indeed, but though the NBTA might be popular with their members and supporters and make a lot of noise in the press, many other boaters (including lots of posters on CWDF) think that what they have done has had a negative effect on the canal system and boaters as a whole... 😞 

 

For example they are virulently opposed to necessary license fee reforms (including the CC surcharge) and CART enforcement of the CC rules (and possible changes to them), claiming that "itinerant boaters" are being persecuted and their way of life is under threat -- ignoring the fact that if they were actually "itinerant" (i.e. roaming around the system) instead of clogging up popular moorings while barely moving they wouldn't have a problem, and that the noise and fury the NBTA have been making may indeed be partly responsible for CART being forced into doing something to change the rules, perhaps to the detriment of all boaters including their own supporters. Hoist by their own petard, some might say...

 

You could certainly say this is a case of all boaters not pulling together, but then the problem with the NBTA is they seem to promote and defend the interests of their own members even if these are to the detriment of (the majority of) other boaters, which is hardly a recipe for unity and love between boaters... 😞 

 

 

Edited January 31 by IanD

[Mike Coombes]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Indeed, but though the NBTA might be popular with their members and supporters and make a lot of noise in the press, many other boaters (including lots of posters on CWDF) think that what they have done has had a negative effect on the canal system and boaters as a whole... 😞 

 

For example they are virulently opposed to necessary license fee reforms (including the CC surcharge) and CART enforcement of the CC rules (and possible changes to them), claiming that "itinerant boaters" are being persecuted and their way of life is under threat -- ignoring the fact that if they were actually "itinerant" (i.e. roaming around the system) instead of clogging up popular moorings while barely moving they wouldn't have a problem, and that the noise and fury the NBTA have been making may indeed be responsible for CART being forced into doing something to change the rules, perhaps to the detriment of all boaters including their own supporters. Hoist by their own petard, some might say...

 

You could certainly say this is a case of all boaters not pulling together, but then the problem with the NBTA is they seem to push the interests of their own members even if there are to the detriment of (the majority of) other boaters, which is hardly a recipe for unity and love between boaters... 😞 

 

 

 

Exactly my view.

[Tear Up The Plan]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Indeed, but though the NBTA might be popular with their members and supporters and make a lot of noise in the press, many other boaters (including lots of posters on CWDF) think that what they have done has had a negative effect on the canal system and boaters as a whole... 😞 

 

For example they are virulently opposed to necessary license fee reforms (including the CC surcharge) and CART enforcement of the CC rules (and possible changes to them), claiming that "itinerant boaters" are being persecuted and their way of life is under threat -- ignoring the fact that if they were actually "itinerant" (i.e. roaming around the system) instead of clogging up popular moorings while barely moving they wouldn't have a problem, and that the noise and fury the NBTA have been making may indeed be partly responsible for CART being forced into doing something to change the rules, perhaps to the detriment of all boaters including their own supporters. Hoist by their own petard, some might say...

 

You could certainly say this is a case of all boaters not pulling together, but then the problem with the NBTA is they seem to promote and defend the interests of their own members even if these are to the detriment of (the majority of) other boaters, which is hardly a recipe for unity and love between boaters... 😞 

 

 

Ah. Thank you for the explanation @IanD  

 

Well poop. That is unfortunate. Python, like Orwell’s 1984, wasn’t meant to be an instructional tool. 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Tear Up The Plan said:

Ah. Thank you for the explanation @IanD  

 

Well poop. That is unfortunate. Python, like Orwell’s 1984, wasn’t meant to be an instructional tool. 

No, but they both were accurate depictions of how people behave. And people who mess about in boats tend to be strongly individualistic rather than being a homogeneous clump (as can be seen on here, usually). There's no such thing as the boating "community".

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Tear Up The Plan said:

A distant observer might think that, given the canals’ vulnerability to parlous funding, it would be in the interests of everyone who has an interest in this to unite in a collective effort to ensure their survival and continued navigable viability. 

 

You are right, but you are making the skoolboy error of thinking the NBTA are interested in the canals. They are not. They are, loosely speaking, the same people who used to make an utter PITA of themselves taking over and squatting empty houses until it was made illegal, at which point they realigned they squatting expertise to canal boats and the canals.

 

They are a political pressure group rather than a canal interest society. Rebels without a clue, to paraphrase that nice Tom Petty chappie. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31 by MtB
Tinker with it.