Overgrown towpaths!!

[nb Innisfree]

There is no way any boater can make a real difference with a pair of shears. We are talking large trees and bushes. Why couldn't CRT mount one of those hedge cutter thingies on a barge that you see farmers using on tractors and cut back the worst of the non towpath side??

It needs more than agricultural shears to get rid of the worst, more like chainsaws.

[MoominPapa]

I listened to a piece on radio 4 the other day about a supermarket ditching the coinslots on their trollies. A man from CaRT was complaining about trollies in canals. Apparently it's bad for the wildlife and towpath walkers don't like to see it. That's it, no mention of anglers losing their tackle or impedance to boaters just wildlife and walkers visual amenity. The two groups who pay don't count. Enough. I'm not hanging around to subsidise the national cycle network any more.

But the two groups who pay directly don't pay anything like enough. If we took the canals private and fenced off the towpaths like they were in the days of carrying and ran them as a members club of license payers, then the license fees would be five times what they are now. Like it or not, much of the money comes from the government, and they're not handling over taxes on behalf of boaters, they're handing them over on behalf of walkers and cyclists and owners of derelict industrial land that needs posh waterside flats on it, and councils who want a centrepiece public space for their town. In reality the bits of the canals that matter are the bits that lots of the public use, mainly in towns and cities. The lengths between are only kept so that the boaters can get from place to place so that the boats add to the spectacle in town.

 

We may not like it, but it's the truth, and specifically it's the reality for CRT, so anyone wanting to influence them needs to take that into account. The bloke from CRT was on radio 4; the vast majority of radio 4 listeners are not boaters, so of course he's going to address the wider constituency of walkers and bunny-huggers, radio 4 is where they are. If you want to know what CRT thinks about the concerns of boaters, go to one of Richard Parry's meet the boaters events.

 

MP.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I'd be fine with that if they let me deduct the cost of my tools and time from my licence fee.

But as boaters we benefit from the regular 'clean ups' carried out by IWA volunteers, how would we feel if every time that they donned boots and gloves they all demanded payment? I cut back weed growth where necessary for my benefit, why should CRT then pay me for it?

 

There is no way any boater can make a real difference with a pair of shears. We are talking large trees and bushes. Why couldn't CRT mount one of those hedge cutter thingies on a barge that you see farmers using on tractors and cut back the worst of the non towpath side??

The problem is that everything has a cost. Would I want CRT lashing out on wonderful equipment thereby increasing the licence fees? If it is to keep the waterway itself open (diggers, dredgers etc) then the answer is yes but just to cut back a few weeds? probably not. The question of cutting back on the non-towpath side might also come down to ownership, do CRT own that side of the canal? Would there be any implications for cutting down trees on farmland that they have no ownership of?

[Delta9]

But as boaters we benefit from the regular 'clean ups' carried out by IWA volunteers, how would we feel if every time that they donned boots and gloves they all demanded payment? I cut back weed growth where necessary for my benefit, why should CRT then pay me for it?

 

 

Who mentioned payment?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Who mentioned payment?

So paying a reduced licence fee wouldn't be like payment? (although it still would mean less money to CRT, like as if you'd been paid). How are CRT going to check that you've actually done anything without sending out their own staff to check? and if they have to do that it rather defeats the object of the exercise. I'll still cut back weeds when I feel I need to and don't expect anything from CRT for doing so (not even a licence discount!).

[nb Innisfree]

The way to find out how much it really costs to run something like the waterways or any public body or whether public sector workers are paid enough is to keep cutting back funding until the system starts to fail, then you've found the base level. Not very nice but that's how stuff tends to work.

[Peter X]

But as boaters we benefit from the regular 'clean ups' carried out by IWA volunteers, how would we feel if every time that they donned boots and gloves they all demanded payment? I cut back weed growth where necessary for my benefit, why should CRT then pay me for it?

 

The problem is that everything has a cost. Would I want CRT lashing out on wonderful equipment thereby increasing the licence fees? If it is to keep the waterway itself open (diggers, dredgers etc) then the answer is yes but just to cut back a few weeds? probably not. The question of cutting back on the non-towpath side might also come down to ownership, do CRT own that side of the canal? Would there be any implications for cutting down trees on farmland that they have no ownership of?

 

For the reasons Moominpapa gave a few posts ago, I very much agree with you; the CRT need to save money and one way is to rely increasingly on unpaid volunteers where possible. Boaters alone cannot efficiently keep down the towpath vegetation, so we have to expect CRT to do the bulk of the mowing, but this can and should be supplemented by volunteers and by a bit of hacking back here and there by boaters who are willing and able to do it and may prefer to moor in the wild. There will be some sections of towpath vegetation which have such wildlife value that they should be left alone, but I'm sure CRT could find some simple way to signpost those, and regular mowing of suitable alternative moorings nearby would help to protect them. Who's going to trample all over the rare plants when there's a nice neat mooring available 100 yards away with Armco or rings?

 

I think the answer to your question at the end, which I mentioned in another post recently (not sure whether it was this topic) is that if a tree or any other vegetation overhangs a boundary it may be cut back as far as the boundary, on condition that (1) the material removed is offered to the tree's owner, who may refuse it, and (2) the tree is not subject to a tree preservation order. In practice neither of these conditions is likely to be a problem, and on the offside the boundary will normally be the water's edge, so CRT will be entitled to do what they need to.

[stagedamager]

I thought they retained a thin ransom strip of offside bank?

[Peter X]

Maybe, I'm not sure, but CRT will definitely own the water, or at least that part of it used for navigation where overhanging branches need to be cut back.

[Jerra]

Maybe, I'm not sure, but CRT will definitely own the water, or at least that part of it used for navigation where overhanging branches need to be cut back.

Surely the situation will be the same as it is on land. IIRC you can cut back to your boundary anything that hangs over but you must offer it back to its owner.

 

I am sure somebody will tell me if I am wrong.

[MyLady]

Isn't the issue here it's summer? And stuff grows in summer.

 

Bridle paths and foot paths at home are very over grown, very overgrown.

 

Walk them in winter and it's all but gone.

 

And ten million quid sounds a lot, but divide by 3000 miles of canal and by wind damage in spring autumn and winter - as well as summer growth - and that doesn't give much per yard of towpath per week.

 

I entirely agree that present conditions are a pain, but it seems unfair to blame CaRT for not being able to cope with all the growth that has happened in a few weeks - I might just as well complain about the noise of mowers and strimmers.

 

Life is a mixed experience of good things and bad and lots of both are not the fault of CaRT.

 

Roger