CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters

[mango]

 

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.

I am not offering any criticism whatsoever of those who have attended meetings arranged by John but the only practical way to have effective representation of large numbers of boaters is via organisations. I have not discussed this with anyone in CRT but I expect they are concerned that they could be under pressure to meet with numerous groups to discuss various issues. CRT simply does not have the money to do this, and there is the danger that they will be pulled in different directions. Meeting with established groups is a more efficient way of communication, and always has been.

 

 

In quoting me, you have missed out the following sentence: 'Alternatively, an existing organisation could take this on.'

[Guest]

 

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.

A very sensible suggestion, and from experience with non-boating activities, I suspect you are close to the truth.

[johnthebridge]

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.

 

Allan-

What was the "work" Simon Robbins did to ascertain that?

Why would boating activities be included under property rental?

I'm also uncertain how you arrive at the £35m figure-how is that made up?

Please note the figures I quote are from 2011/12, i.e. a year later than the ones you appear to be using.

Edited August 17, 2013 by johnthebridge

[sueb]

 

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.

Have you any evidence at all for your last comment?

[jenlyn]

Have you any evidence at all for your last comment?

I doubt he has any in black and white, but I know that it was a factor.

[MtB]

Have you any evidence at all for your last comment?

Evidence is not needed to hold a belief. Ask any Godder.

 

 

MtB

[mango]

 

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.

There is a pinned topic on this forum: 'Canalside litterpicks or cleanups being organised.'

 

The Leeds & Liverpool Canal Society or IWA may know about events in the area.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Allan-

What was the "work" Simon Robbins did to ascertain that?

Why would boating activities be included under property rental?

I'm also uncertain how you arrive at the £35m figure-how is that made up?

A couple of years ago, boaters were being told that we represented a small but significant part of BW's income.

BW would present figures showing gross income from licence fees and compare it to, say property and licence fees would go up.

 

I believe (but can not confirm) that the "work" done by Simon Robbins, which amounted to making a request under the Freedom of Information Act, allowed NABO to at least gain the moral high ground with regard to the significant gross contribution boating activities make to BW/CaRT's income. Perhaps, it was one of the reasons that trustees decided to peg future licence fee increases to inflation.

 

As to the figures, you have provided most of them yourself -

 

Boat licencing £17.8m

BWML £6.9m

BW moorings £6.4m

 

That gives £31.1m.

In response to the FOI request, BW provided two further figures - £1.6m (primarily network access and connection agreements for marinas and online mooring sites) and £3.1m (primarily related to rents where Boat Licence holders are likely to be substantial customers or service users - e.g. hire boat bases, leased marinas, boatyards and boat clubs).

 

The additional £4.7m gives £35.8m gross income from boating related activities and reduces the 'property' figure.

 

(For the pedants, the £4.7m relates to 2010/11 and Johns figures relate to 2011/12. However, I see no reason to introduce a different set of figures to the ones used by John as the bottom line will be about the same).

 

Edited August 17, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[blackrose]

 

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

 

I'm not sure about that. I don't know as much about the history of the canals as you, but I heard that in the 1950s, 60s & 70s the plan was to let the canals fall into disrepair and eventually fill them in. In many cases that plan of neglect was started and only just pulled back from the brink.

 

These days if there were no boats maintenence would be minimised to the extent that locks wouldn't need to be maintained and navigation wouldn't be an issue. It would just be maintaining the towpaths & trees, etc.

[DeanS]

Have you any evidence at all for your last comment?

 

Yes. I cannot think of any other logical reason that the meetings arranged by boaters, paid for by boaters, with an aim to have growing communication channels with CRT would have been stopped. At the same time the response from John D was that the likes of myself should go and join the IWA . I may of course be wrong, but I will never know, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Bad PR.

 

 

ETA....I know it's easy to blurt all this out on a forum, and I know a lot of people in all organisations countrywide are doing great things...and being a keyboard warrior is not helpful...however,.....I was one of those boaters who actually did make the effort to go to a few meetings..and I thought they were "going somewhere".

Edited August 17, 2013 by DeanS

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I'm not sure about that. I don't know as much about the history of the canals as you, but I heard that in the 1950s, 60s & 70s the plan was to let the canals fall into disrepair and eventually fill them in. In many cases that plan of neglect was started and only just pulled back from the brink.

 

These days if there were no boats maintenence would be minimised to the extent that locks wouldn't need to be maintained and navigation wouldn't be an issue. It would just be maintaining the towpaths & trees, etc.

I believe Tony Hales is on record as saying that the cost of maintaining an abandoned waterway is not significantly less than one being used for navigation although I do not understand as to why that would be.

 

 

[MtB]

I believe Tony Hales is on record as saying that the cost of maintaining an abandoned waterway is not significantly less than one being used for navigation although I do not understand as to why that would be.

Because bugger all is spent on real navigational maintenance anyway.

 

Most of CRTs spending appears to me to be wasted on hairbrained schemes to force boaters into visitor moorings, fitting trip harzards to locksides, upgrading towpaths to two metre wide graded surfaces suitable for cycling and wheelchairs, new lock ladders, converting piled banksides to seeded sausages, protecting water voles. The only truly navigational maintenance that seems to get done is reactive, after a problem arises e.g. collapsing lock walls, failing lock gates, bridges falling to bits into the cut, etc.

 

MtB

P.S. and I haven't seen any dredging being done for AGES. Didn't they sell all their dredgers anyway?

[johnthebridge]

I believe Tony Hales is on record as saying that the cost of maintaining an abandoned waterway is not significantly less than one being used for navigation although I do not understand as to why that would be.

 

 

I was speaking only this week with someone I have known personally for many years and for whom I have the highest regard but, for obvious reasons, must remain anonymous. This person assured me that that CART policy now is that "only the bits that show will be maintained".

You can choose whether to believe this statement, or not. I believe it.

Usual detractors.

[jenlyn]

I was speaking only this week with someone I have known personally for many years and for whom I have the highest regard but, for obvious reasons, must remain anonymous. This person assured me that that CART policy now is that "only the bits that show will be maintained".

You can choose whether to believe this statement, or not. I believe it.

Usual detractors.

I believe that too. In fact it's becoming quite evident, but seemingly only to a few. The choice by some to ignore, or turn a blind eye to what's happening leaves me gobsmacked. I suppose it's the "well it's not effecting me yet, so I wont worry about it" syndrome.

Well, it will effect those soon, have no fear, then it will be my turn to say "I told you so".

[DeanS]

I believe that too. In fact it's becoming quite evident, but seemingly only to a few.

 

The L&L canal has been an eye opener...the canal has more reeds/weeds/rocks in it than water. Most lock gates leak. Had a stoppage on the way to Leeds. Another on the way back. Ground paddles ...about 75% work. 50% of the water bit is covered with low hanging trees (got the scratches to prove it). 2 water points not working. It's been great fun, but it's been a challenge with a widebeam , and certainly does seem to show what happens on canals that are "further afield" . As I did say in earlier posts however, the scenery is amazing, and for that reason, it's definately my top choice canal at the moment..... I'm very thankful to the CRT teams on the ground who did sort out the stoppages quickly and professionally...they are a Godsend. One thought that did cross my mind was....I know it's navigable to narrowboats...but will CRT keep it navigable for boats a little larger......or......for boaters who are of a certain fitness level...(referring to the ability to push a swing bridge...we are in our forties...dont think we could do it in our sixties ;-)

[jenlyn]

Don't let this thread distract you from what's happening on the cut in real terms.

Did I mention CRT has a good PR guy ;-)

[sueb]

I doubt he has any in black and white, but I know that it was a factor.

I am interested in this as accusations have been made and I would be interested in any evidence. Anyone can make accusations. Are all the other organisations implicated? Edited August 17, 2013 by sueb

[mango]

I believe that too. In fact it's becoming quite evident, but seemingly only to a few. The choice by some to ignore, or turn a blind eye to what's happening leaves me gobsmacked. I suppose it's the "well it's not effecting me yet, so I wont worry about it" syndrome.

Well, it will effect those soon, have no fear, then it will be my turn to say "I told you so".

The evidence of lack of maintenance is there for all to see. To be fair, our waterways were not in a very good state in the 60s and 70s either. We have also seen evidence of procrastination resulting in expensive repairs where earlier work might have avoided the problem.

 

You can, if you wish, blame CRT for getting its priorities wrong, but basically there is not enough money to do the work needed to keep up with maintenance. As I've said before, if we are passionate about our waterways, we need to help find funding and/or manpower.

[jenlyn]

The evidence of lack of maintenance is there for all to see. To be fair, our waterways were not in a very good state in the 60s and 70s either. We have also seen evidence of procrastination resulting in expensive repairs where earlier work might have avoided the problem.

 

You can, if you wish, blame CRT for getting its priorities wrong, but basically there is not enough money to do the work needed to keep up with maintenance. As I've said before, if we are passionate about our waterways, we need to help find funding and/or manpower.

Im not sure that they don't have the money. They happily find thing's to spend what money they do have, often on schemes that should not have preference over basic maintenance.

My beef at the moment with CRT is that they have money to spend on SEVM, with no return from it that I can see, yet jeff whyatt says they dont have enough money to maintain overgrowth. Priorities seem to be getting mixed up.

[Higgs]

Our voice on the council was scuppered, and now another valiant attempt to communicate has been blocked. In all, I don't think it is boaters who lack respect or show disregard for the system.

 

It has never bothered me that I spend the majority of the time in a marina, not making the best use of the licence fee - £833.00. This has been going on for 12 years. I would now like my licence fee reducing to the percentage part I pay in my mooring fee that the marina pays to CRT as a connection fee. I will then like to purchase a period licence for a few weeks a year.

 

Talk about being taken for granted.

[rgreg]

I am not offering any criticism whatsoever of those who have attended meetings arranged by John but the only practical way to have effective representation of large numbers of boaters is via organisations. I have not discussed this with anyone in CRT but I expect they are concerned that they could be under pressure to meet with numerous groups to discuss various issues. CRT simply does not have the money to do this, and there is the danger that they will be pulled in different directions. Meeting with established groups is a more efficient way of communication, and always has been '[/font][/color]

I do think you have a point here, whilst echoing every respect for the people who took the time and effort to make these meetings happen.

[Athy]

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?

It would be churlish to criticise somebody for seeking to improve.

Sally joined this forum for about ten minutes a couple of years ago but then withdrew from the fray; her voluntary return to that fray should at least engender respect for her.

[MtB]

Im not sure that they don't have the money. They happily find thing's to spend what money they do have, often on schemes that should not have preference over basic maintenance.

 

Quite so. In fact it seems to be BECAUSE they have stopped spending on regular maintenance they are able to fund the hare-brained VM schemes and non-navigation-related personal pet projects like establishing and planting miles on end of 'fender growth' for the benefit of the cute little voles.

 

 

MtB

[Athy]

The voles were keeping quiet about that until somebody ratted on them.

[mango]

Im not sure that they don't have the money. They happily find thing's to spend what money they do have, often on schemes that should not have preference over basic maintenance.

My beef at the moment with CRT is that they have money to spend on SEVM, with no return from it that I can see, yet jeff whyatt says they dont have enough money to maintain overgrowth. Priorities seem to be getting mixed up.

I don't know the answer but I believe that money is allocated for various projects and vegetation management is largely done by contractors these days. This would be a good job for volunteers to tackle, saving funds for other purposes, but the current health and safety requirements are rather onerous. CRT is responsible for work done by volunteers but they also need help to tackle maintenance work. What we don't need is volunteer lock keepers at sites where we all managed fine without lock keepers.

 

Boaters have different priorities. I do not have a lot of time for boating these days but lack of visitor moorings can be a real pain, and I do not want to have to tie up at 3pm to be assured of getting a mooring. I don't know enough about the SEVM situation to comment on how the money has been spent.