CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[RLWP]

 

Your mind is very muddled. C&RT has a duty to maintain the canals, but it needs income to do so, and boaters' licence fees don't provide enough. So it is entirely proper and correct to remind people of the fact that boaters are in fact receiving a massive subsidy from the Exchequer.

 

That is only true if the purpose of canals is solely to provide a facility for boats

 

If there were no boats, the cost of maintaining the network doesn't go away

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

I spent most of yesterday on trains and in Birmingham but tried to keep up with this thread on my phone. I decided that maybe I should keep away from the thread and not post anymore. I am not going to defend myself for what I have said or for my OP. The Boaters meetings were very productive and very useful in my opinion because they were organised by boaters for boaters in the spirit of working with CRT to ensure the voice of those who whatever reason do not belong to one of the Organisations that represent certain boaters. I am and always will be grateful that CRT supported the principle of working together and Sally Ash was a tremendous supporter of the process. I will be interested to see how things progress with the "User Groups" or whatever they will be called in the future and if it increases dialog with CRT then that is good, but they will no longer be meetings organised by boaters for boaters, they will be meetings organised by CRT for boaters and whoever CRT feel should be at the meeting that is not say they will not be a step forward.

I personally will recover from this set back and continue to campaign to ensure boaters voices are heard in the spirit of working with CRT (not quite sure how yet) my feelings about CRT have not changed I want them to succeed (well it is in my interest) and I will continue to support them, but I will continue to speak out when I think they are wrong or not fully understanding the bigger picture. I am concerned about some of the things that are happening and how they will impact boaters in the future.

I would like to finish by saying a BIG thank you to all those that attended the meetings and all those especially Jenlyn and Alan Fincher who have worked tirelessly to try and make things happen and not forgetting those within CRT who allowed it to happen, and that very much includes all the time that John Dodwell put in especially listening to all my whinging when things were not happening quickly enough. I am looking forward to the social in Birmingham and I will be first in the Q to thank the staff from CRT for embracing change but will remind them there is a long way to go.

[mango]

 

Your mind is very muddled. C&RT has a duty to maintain the canals, but it needs income to do so, and boaters' licence fees don't provide enough. So it is entirely proper and correct to remind people of the fact that boaters are in fact receiving a massive subsidy from the Exchequer.

CRT was given government funding for fifteen years to enable it to generate income and become self-sustaining. It may take some boaters more than fifteen years to accept that licence fees don't provide anything like enough income to run the waterways, never mind tackling the maintenance backlog. It is time to pull together and secure major funding for our waterways. That has been achieved before, for example Lottery funding of large restoration projects. Boaters represent a small proportion of the public, but bringing in funding for waterway projects that involve communities allow money to be spent more effectively.

 

CRT is not just a boating organisation. It has a far wider remit, and that was made clear well before it took over from BW. Your main interest (and mine) may be in boating, but we need to see the bigger picture.

[bizzard]

Ironic how most people on this forum couldn't wait to see the back of BW because they thought CRT would be better. Just goes to show, be careful what you wish for...

Do you remember I think it was Carlt's sparring partner last year, ''The guitar doctor''.

[blodger]

CRT was given government funding for fifteen years to enable it to generate income and become self-sustaining. It may take some boaters more than fifteen years to accept that licence fees don't provide anything like enough income to run the waterways, never mind tackling the maintenance backlog. It is time to pull together and secure major funding for our waterways. That has been achieved before, for example Lottery funding of large restoration projects. Boaters represent a small proportion of the public, but bringing in funding for waterway projects that involve communities allow money to be spent more effectively.

 

CRT is not just a boating organisation. It has a far wider remit, and that was made clear well before it took over from BW. Your main interest (and mine) may be in boating, but we need to see the bigger picture.

And I do not think any boater and certainly not those engaged in the 'boater discussions' is unaware of the bigger picture and CaRT's remit and, the bigger picture is no excuse for inadequate boater involvemnet in CaRT.

[Athy]

 

 

If there were no boats, the cost of maintaining the network doesn't go away

 

Richard

ER, not quite: if there were no boats, we would not need to have canals. They were (though it's often forgotten by many people nowadays) built so that boats could navigate them. Anglers could find other waters in which to fish, ramblers could ramble around other parts of the countryside and, doubtless, a certain section of the cycling public could find other places through which to hurtle.

[MtB]

Your mind is very muddled. C&RT has a duty to maintain the canals, but it needs income to do so, and boaters' licence fees don't provide enough. So it is entirely proper and correct to remind people of the fact that boaters are in fact receiving a massive subsidy from the Exchequer.

This is one important fact to have emerged from this thread which I didn't fully realise.

 

Broadly speaking it seems boaters pay one third of the money it costs to run CRT and the public purse pays two thirds.

 

This puts a very different light on boaters' collective general opinion that we pay the most towards upkeep of canals and should therefore have the loudest voice. It seems we don't.

 

The public purse is subsidising our hobby (or our homes, for liveaboards) for the next 14 years, and we should be grateful for this while it lasts.

 

 

MtB

[Guest]

This is one important fact to have emerged from this thread which I didn't fully realise.

 

Broadly speaking it seems boaters pay one third of the money it costs to run CRT and the public purse pays two thirds.

 

This puts a very different light on boaters' collective general opinion that we pay the most towards upkeep of canals and should therefore have the loudest voice. It seems we don't.

 

The public purse is subsidising our hobby (or our homes, for liveaboards) for the next 14 years, and we should be grateful for this while it lasts.

 

 

MtB

 

You miss a crucial point Mike - we also contribute to the public purse AND we pay a licence fee to specifically boat on it.

 

The other 'users' pay nothing (bar possibly fishing persons) additional to their PP contribution, so overall we do pay more as individuals, much more in fact.

Edited August 17, 2013 by The Dog House

[Athy]

I am not sure about that. I assume that the 30% figure refers to boat licence income. But BW/ CART has other sources of income: their marinas are a money-spinner, they also own or co-own a number of properties including waterside pubs and lock cottages, which bring in rent. They also derive income from angling clubs who pay for fishing rights on particular stretches of waterway.

In addition, we the boaters also pay taxes so we form part of that "public purse".

 

EDIT: my post refers to MTB's comments, not those of Mr. House who, as ever, is just too quick for me.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Athy

[mango]

And I do not think any boater and certainly not those engaged in the 'boater discussions' is unaware of the bigger picture and CaRT's remit and, the bigger picture is no excuse for inadequate boater involvemnet in CaRT.

Regarding management of the canal system, by far the most efficient way of organising boater involvement is via discussion with representatives from organisations. CRT simply cannot afford to devote resources with everyone who would like their opinion to be heard. By joining one or more organisation that supports your view, you are more likely to be listened to.

 

Boaters are in general the greatest supporters of our waterways, but also stand to lose most if CRT fails to run a sustainable business. What I think we need is a new organisation driven by enthusiastic boaters to explore ways of raising funds for our waterways or to tackle work that would otherwise need to be done by CRT employees or contractors. Alternatively, an existing organisation could take this on.

[jenlyn]

This is one important fact to have emerged from this thread which I didn't fully realise.Broadly speaking it seems boaters pay one third of the money it costs to run CRT and the public purse pays two thirds.This puts a very different light on boaters' collective general opinion that we pay the most towards upkeep of canals and should therefore have the loudest voice. It seems we don't.The public purse is subsidising our hobby (or our homes, for liveaboards) for the next 14 years, and we should be grateful for this while it lasts.MtB

To be fair, the argument tends to state, we are the biggest paying group to use the canals.

The bigger picture is that money coming into the trust has an aim, to maintain the canal for its primary use. That's navigation.

One small point, government funding is also a small part of CRT income. By far the largest amount of money comes from property. This will, or should in years to come cover the eventual loss of government funding. Boats do not have to fund the canals. However, in my opinion, the amount we contribute as a smallish user group is substantial, and not to be sniffed at in a pompous way.

[davidc]

So lets start the CWDF friends of the inland waterways association.

 

Am sure Dhutch,John, Jenlyn,carlt,matty and Alan Fincher , and many more will help Organises it and set it up

 

maybe we should start another thread to discussed opinions.

[rgreg]

I am not sure about that. I assume that the 30% figure refers to boat licence income. But BW/ CART has other sources of income: their marinas are a money-spinner, they also own or co-own a number of properties including waterside pubs and lock cottages, which bring in rent. They also derive income from angling clubs who pay for fishing rights on particular stretches of waterway.

In addition, we the boaters also pay taxes so we form part of that "public purse".

 

EDIT: my post refers to MTB's comments, not those of Mr. House who, as ever, is just too quick for me.

If I recall correctly from information given at a user group meeting, the licence income accounts for around 10-15% of the total income. I may be wrong with this figure but I'm sure someone will confirm the exact percentage.

[Gingerbeer]

Regarding management of the canal system, by far the most efficient way of organising boater involvement is via discussion with representatives from organisations. CRT simply cannot afford to devote resources with everyone who would like their opinion to be heard. By joining one or more organisation that supports your view, you are more likely to be listened to.

 

Boaters are in general the greatest supporters of our waterways, but also stand to lose most if CRT fails to run a sustainable business. What I think we need is a new organisation driven by enthusiastic boaters to explore ways of raising funds for our waterways or to tackle work that would otherwise need to be done by CRT employees or contractors. Alternatively, an existing organisation could take this on.

 

I think this is a very good idea. Still a newbie but why not have one or two representative organizations from each county that takes surveys, asks questions of the boaters (making sure that all boaters in each county know who to go to with their questions and concerns), and then forward those on to the CRT? Maybe even have a meeting with them four times a year. Local work on the canals can be achieved much more frugally if the CRT knows that there are people in each area who are qualified to do work on them. A well organized cleanup party once a month or more can add a great deal to the look of a canal. Maybe even a challenge to see who can pull the most plastic bottles out of the water with a trophy or a nice dinner out to the winner. I was appalled at the number of bottles in the L&L when we went out for a few hours on it. Even the ducks were climbing over them. Sad, very sad indeed.

[MtB]

To be fair, the argument tends to state, we are the biggest paying group to use the canals.

The bigger picture is that money coming into the trust has an aim, to maintain the canal for its primary use. That's navigation.

If this is true, it is quite a big stick to be holding when attempting to influence CRT policies. Surely it it just one of a multitude of aims all competing for funding.

 

 

 

One small point, government funding is also a small part of CRT income.

I've seen a figure of £80m quoted as the contribution from the public purse. If this is wrong, how much IS the govt funding please?

 

 

By far the largest amount of money comes from property.

Anyone got a rough figure for rental income please?

 

 

This will, or should in years to come cover the eventual loss of government funding.

I don't see how. Broadly speaking rents keep pace with inflation plus a bit. But it depends on the size of the govt funding that will need replacing.

 

 

Boats do not have to fund the canals. However, in my opinion, the amount we contribute as a smallish user group is substantial, and not to be sniffed at in a pompous way.

Agreed.

 

 

MtB

[c c]

Making changes to the existing user group format, including more voices, different agenda, more/different Trust representatives taking part and possibly changing the name would seem to us the logical and most efficient approach.

 

Issues are never black or white and it feels to me as if people often jump to conclusions on the basis of about 5% of the relevant information. The plague of social networks I guess.

Sally

On your first point above - Would it be useful to tell you that I was put off attending our regional user group meeting, and there is nothing wrong with that name, because it was always a case of sitting through a one way monologue with BW, now CRT, in command and control followed by "Oh look, we don't have much time for your questions". What have CRT to fear from letting users of the waterways have a free say at these meetings and give vent to their fears, which CRT can answer then or later. Surely that would be much much more constructive than a User Group monologue on line. An experienced chairman should be able to control excess barracking from the floor which can get as annoying to the audience as it does to the Chair.

On the second point - that is precisely why CRT should be involved in listening to the Users and provide to the debate, what part of the information that they know.

[mango]

To be fair, the argument tends to state, we are the biggest paying group to use the canals.

The bigger picture is that money coming into the trust has an aim, to maintain the canal for its primary use. That's navigation.

One small point, government funding is also a small part of CRT income. By far the largest amount of money comes from property. This will, or should in years to come cover the eventual loss of government funding. Boats do not have to fund the canals. However, in my opinion, the amount we contribute as a smallish user group is substantial, and not to be sniffed at in a pompous way.

Let us hope that CRT continues to be successful with its property investments. There was uncertainty that the property portfolio would be handed over to CRT, and thank goodness it was.

 

We can hope for the future but need to be concerned about the state of the waterways at present. The top priority is to raise income and unless that is achieved, we could see longer stoppages and prioritisation of funding to either achieve most benefit or generate most revenue.

 

It seems unlikely that the government will put more funding into our waterways at present. I suppose we could take money from the health services, emergency services or education to support the canals, but that would not be popular.

[blodger]

Regarding management of the canal system, by far the most efficient way of organising boater involvement is via discussion with representatives from organisations. CRT simply cannot afford to devote resources with everyone who would like their opinion to be heard. By joining one or more organisation that supports your view, you are more likely to be listened to.

 

Boaters are in general the greatest supporters of our waterways, but also stand to lose most if CRT fails to run a sustainable business. What I think we need is a new organisation driven by enthusiastic boaters to explore ways of raising funds for our waterways or to tackle work that would otherwise need to be done by CRT employees or contractors. Alternatively, an existing organisation could take this on.

I think what Sally is saying is that maybe they need to re-jig how they consult & liaise with related organisations to ensure the boaters' voice is heard without another organisation informal or formal.

Cinically, what they do not want is effective boater input but watered down boater input as previously!

[johnthebridge]

If this is true, it is quite a big stick to be holding when attempting to influence CRT policies. Surely it it just one of a multitude of aims all competing for funding.

 

 

 

 

I've seen a figure of £80m quoted as the contribution from the public purse. If this is wrong, how much IS the govt funding please?

 

 

 

Anyone got a rough figure for rental income please?

 

 

 

I don't see how. Broadly speaking rents keep pace with inflation plus a bit. But it depends on the size of the govt funding that will need replacing.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

MtB

Property rental etc. £38.2m

Utility/water sales £24.4m

Boat licencing £17.8m

BWML £6.9m

BW moorings £6.4m

Retail sales £2.9m

Maintenance/other £11.6m

Government grant £57.7m

 

(Last BW accounts 2011/12)

[RLWP]

ER, not quite: if there were no boats, we would not need to have canals.

 

If there were no boats, the water in the disused collieries around the Black country would have to be discharged into a purpose made drainage system instead of the BCN

 

What was your point again?

 

Richard

[blodger]

ER, not quite: if there were no boats, we would not need to have canals. They were (though it's often forgotten by many people nowadays) built so that boats could navigate them. Anglers could find other waters in which to fish, ramblers could ramble around other parts of the countryside and, doubtless, a certain section of the cycling public could find other places through which to hurtle.

A lot of canals need to be maintained for land drainage/flood control & water supply; the latter of which earns a considerable sum

[Leo No2]

Sally

On your first point above - Would it be useful to tell you that I was put off attending our regional user group meeting, and there is nothing wrong with that name, because it was always a case of sitting through a one way monologue with BW, now CRT, in command and control followed by "Oh look, we don't have much time for your questions". What have CRT to fear from letting users of the waterways have a free say at these meetings and give vent to their fears, which CRT can answer then or later. Surely that would be much much more constructive than a User Group monologue on line. An experienced chairman should be able to control excess barracking from the floor which can get as annoying to the audience as it does to the Chair.

On the second point - that is precisely why CRT should be involved in listening to the Users and provide to the debate, what part of the information that they know.

What you need, in my view, is an impartial facilitator who is given the authority to 'control' not only the 'public' but also the chair and others from CRT so that everyone has an opportunity. That also includes putting a gag on those in the audience who feel that a loud voice gets them heard (too often) and furthermore allows those that have valid points, who are perhaps not quite so forceful, to be heard. It's quite a skill but I have seen it work so very well in other situations. That way no one, other than the facilitator, controls the meeting.

[blodger]

I note that Sally Ash, CaRT Head of Boating, has been given plaudits for her role and involvement in the boater discussions. Correct me if this is not a sea change in the esteem with which she was previously held?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Property rental etc. £38.2m

Utility/water sales £24.4m

Boat licencing £17.8m

BWML £6.9m

BW moorings £6.4m

Retail sales £2.9m

Maintenance/other £11.6m

Government grant £57.7m

 

(Last BW accounts 2011/12)

For what it's worth, work done by NABO's Simon Robbins found that income due to boating activies is higher than shown in the accounts. The main reason for this is that a proportion of property rental is due to boating activities.

 

If this is taken into account then boaters are contributing about £35m and the property contribution is slightly less.

 

Current government grant is £39m.

 

 

***** Edited to say that BW confirmed that on its 2010/11 figures some £4.7m in property rental was due to boating related activities.

 

Edited August 17, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[DeanS]

What I think we need is a new organisation driven by enthusiastic boaters to explore ways of raising funds for our waterways or to tackle work that would otherwise need to be done by CRT employees or contractors.

 

erm.....this is EXACTLY what Johns arranged meetings were all about. The people at those meetings were:

 

1. enthusiastic

2. helping CRT explore all sorts of possibilities.

3. A mix of boaters and volunteer organisations, and hire companies all in one room

4. All with an aim of helping CRT understand the actual real needs of all, and working WITH THEM to educate boaters (via this forum for example) of things CRT was doing.

 

 

 

 

I personally also believe that these meetings were shot down through peer pressure from other organisations, who may have been feeling under threat.