A return to D&IWE areas or the beginning of the end of CRT??

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 minutes ago, fanshaft said:

I think this is more likely an error of omission rather than conspiracy.  Certainly my Partnership (NE) has nothing to hide.  Anyone wanting to find out anything about a Partnership project or other matter could simply e-mail the chair! .

Regards David L

I have a number of issues with that response, David.

Firstly, the terms of reference for Waterway Partnerships -

Quote

3.6 Working with the Chair, the waterway management team will provide the secretariat for the meetings of the Partnership and Committees – to agree meeting dates and venues, issue meeting agendas and provide a written record of all meetings which, once approved, will be publicly available on the website.

Fairly obviously, WP chairs and Waterway Managers have a duty to ensure publication. The fact is, with the exception of West Midlands, none of them ensured all minutes were published for meetings in the first six moths of 2017/18.

Mark Penny's email address is not published on the website, neither is the email address for other WP chairs. So - no easy way to get in touch with a WP chair to ask for minutes that should have been published anyway ...

North East was missing all five minutes documented in C&RT's meeting calendar for the first half of the 2017/18 financial year.  Here is the response from C&RT to part of my request -

Quote

 

North East

27 April- Please see the notes at the following link 
[3]https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/...

24 May- The information you have requested is not held by the Trust as no 
minutes were taken. This was a site visit.

28 June- Please see the notes at the following link 
[4]https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/...

9 August- The information you have requested is not held by the Trust as 
no minutes were taken. This was a site visit. 

27 September- Please see the notes at the following link 
[5]https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/...

 

 

[fanshaft]

31 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Mark Penny's email address is not published on the website, neither is the email address for other WP chairs. So - no easy way to get in touch with a WP chair to ask for minutes that should have been published anyway ...

 

 

The e-mail addresses are all standard CRT: so easy to work out!  As an example:  mark.penny@canalrivertrust.org.uk  or chair.northeast@canalrivertrust.org.uk

but I must admit it's not easy to find the meeting notes.

Regards David L

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 16/12/2017 at 16:42, fanshaft said:

The e-mail addresses are all standard CRT: so easy to work out!  As an example:  mark.penny@canalrivertrust.org.uk  or chair.northeast@canalrivertrust.org.uk

but I must admit it's not easy to find the meeting notes.

Regards David L

Following my Freedom of Information request, C&RT have published about 30 minutes/notes of meetIngs.

Most are now on C&RT's meetings calendar at -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings

You can restrict your search by using the 'Type' drop down menu on the right. Use it to select 'Partnership Meetings'. You can further restrict your search to a single Partnership by using the 'Region' drop down menu before selecting 'Search'.

You can further restrict the search by date if required.

It's actually a lot quicker to do than explain!

There are a few minutes/notes For East Midlands that, for some reason I can't explain, C&RT says it will put on its meetings calendar at a later date. These can be found on the Whatdotheyknow.com website.

Regarding Davids earlier assertion the North East Waterway Partnership have nothing to hide, I have emailed Mark Penny asking for a document that C&RT refused to provide under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[Heartland]

It is very useful to see what the partnership meetings have to say and state. The last one for the West Midlands is from the start of November with another two to add notes for up to start of December.

There is a reference to a proposed heritage trail in the last from Chances Glassworks into Birmingham- I wonder which way they intend to go? via the 473ft at first or all along the 453 ft level?

Looking at all the reports over time, it is with dismay that little is proposed or suggested for improving boater access and  provide new moorings, or discuss Icknield Port that horrendous eyesore, or to look at safe places to walk where muggers are deterred from operating, or where a daily Tour de France is discouraged, or where the failed Banksy's of this world try their pitiful attempts of art on any surface, wall or metalwork in fact should the people attending these meetings be focused on what is needed. It is not to credit of the present IWA chairman that he appears not to have had an impact on such matters! I know from previous conversations with said gentleman that it was on his agenda. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It's unusual for West Midlands to be behind with minutes. Usually, WM minutes would are published within days of a monthly meeting. 

However, I guess it is to be expected in the current climate. I had on WP chair tell me today that he has just resigned. 

 

[fanshaft]

On 12/17/2017 at 19:51, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Following my Freedom of Information request, C&RT have published about 30 minutes/notes of meetIngs.

Most are now on C&RT's meetings calendar at -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings

You can restrict your search by using the 'Type' drop down menu on the right. Use it to select 'Partnership Meetings'. You can further restrict your search to a single Partnership by using the 'Region' drop down menu before selecting 'Search'.

You can further restrict the search by date if required.

It's actually a lot quicker to do than explain!

There are a few minutes/notes For East Midlands that, for some reason I can't explain, C&RT says it will put on its meetings calendar at a later date. These can be found on the Whatdotheyknow.com website.

Regarding Davids earlier assertion the North East Waterway Partnership have nothing to hide, I have emailed Mark Penny asking for a document that C&RT refused to provide under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

What document was that Allan?  Partnerships are sometimes (though not often) privy to confidential information. 

David

 

 

[fanshaft]

9 hours ago, Heartland said:

It is very useful to see what the partnership meetings have to say and state. The last one for the West Midlands is from the start of November with another two to add notes for up to start of December.

There is a reference to a proposed heritage trail in the last from Chances Glassworks into Birmingham- I wonder which way they intend to go? via the 473ft at first or all along the 453 ft level?

Looking at all the reports over time, it is with dismay that little is proposed or suggested for improving boater access and  provide new moorings, or discuss Icknield Port that horrendous eyesore, or to look at safe places to walk where muggers are deterred from operating, or where a daily Tour de France is discouraged, or where the failed Banksy's of this world try their pitiful attempts of art on any surface, wall or metalwork in fact should the people attending these meetings be focused on what is needed. It is not to credit of the present IWA chairman that he appears not to have had an impact on such matters! I know from previous conversations with said gentleman that it was on his agenda. 

Partnerships don't get involved in the detail of waterway operation:  as such I reckon this would include graffiti, speeding cyclists, muggers, problems with locks, dredging etc.  That said, individual members might well take matters up with appropriate staff, but that would be outside of the Partnership, though a useful spin off. 

The Icknield Port project is now going ahead so won't be an eye-sore for much longer!  I'd be surprised if the Partnership hasn't been updated on it - maybe that is on a future agenda.

To some extent a Partnership's interests and activities will be influenced by its membership - hence in the NE additional moorings, the great work on the Mirfield Promenade, freight development, Pocklington etc. 

Regards David L

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 hours ago, fanshaft said:

What document was that Allan?  Partnerships are sometimes (though not often) privy to confidential information. 

David

 

 

The Three Year Action Plan which was produced alongside the Strategic Waterway Plan in 2013.

[Jrtm]

If i read this right it reads

C&rt spend money to try and save money by spending more money to help them loose touch with local areas by making the areas bigger.

I hope this new system will help as last time i had to call c&rt to sort an issue dispite calling my local area at the time they still didnt know anything about the area and had to call me back twice and they still wernt sure.

[Heartland]

"C&rt spend money to try and save money by spending more money to help them loose touch with local areas by making the areas bigger...."

I sort of formed that opinion too and if true there is a worrying time ahead. If I recall the CRT have so many years of Government Funding then finances will become more restricted. 

What then?

With regards to the partnerships what is their role. They may suggest and influence decisions, but is this a practical device or are they in their present role ineffectual?   

Edited January 2, 2018 by Heartland

[fanshaft]

On 1/2/2018 at 14:08, Heartland said:

"C&rt spend money to try and save money by spending more money to help them loose touch with local areas by making the areas bigger...."

I sort of formed that opinion too and if true there is a worrying time ahead. If I recall the CRT have so many years of Government Funding then finances will become more restricted. 

What then?

With regards to the partnerships what is their role. They may suggest and influence decisions, but is this a practical device or are they in their present role ineffectual?   

I serve on the NE Partnership and I think we do a good job. A very respected boater friend of mine with a huge and long experience of waterways serves on another partnership and she says likewise.   But the best way is to judge for yourself by attending a partnership annual meeting or get hold of copies of the annual reports.  Each partnership has a slightly different approach depending on make up and character of the waterways.

Much of the work is unseen and consists of both practical work such as strategy planning, and input to the local waterway plan and annual bid for funds etc and the very important 'networking' with local bodies and organisations, movers and shakers etc.  Very often where outside  funding is obtained it goes straight to a project rather than via CRT books. 

Best wishes

David L

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 1/2/2018 at 14:08, Heartland said:

"C&rt spend money to try and save money by spending more money to help them loose touch with local areas by making the areas bigger...."

I sort of formed that opinion too and if true there is a worrying time ahead. If I recall the CRT have so many years of Government Funding then finances will become more restricted. 

What then?

With regards to the partnerships what is their role. They may suggest and influence decisions, but is this a practical device or are they in their present role ineffectual?   

 

On 1/3/2018 at 18:14, fanshaft said:

I serve on the NE Partnership and I think we do a good job. A very respected boater friend of mine with a huge and long experience of waterways serves on another partnership and she says likewise.   But the best way is to judge for yourself by attending a partnership annual meeting or get hold of copies of the annual reports.  Each partnership has a slightly different approach depending on make up and character of the waterways.

Much of the work is unseen and consists of both practical work such as strategy planning, and input to the local waterway plan and annual bid for funds etc and the very important 'networking' with local bodies and organisations, movers and shakers etc.  Very often where outside  funding is obtained it goes straight to a project rather than via CRT books. 

Best wishes

David L

I have been researching WP's for some time now. Clarity of role has always been a moving target ... David has reinforced this by referring to an 'annual bid for funds'. The 2013 intention was that Waterways Partnerships would be self funding on projects (with an option of C&RT match funding). Put another way, Waterways Partnerships, should be contributing to the waterways by initiating projects for which they find the funds. C&RT may decide to contribute by match funding money raised.

In my book, you can only judge WP's based on what they set out to achieve and how they performed. What I am trying to discover is how WP's have performed against Three Year Action Plans.

However, to do that you must have sight of those plans!

Here is my email made to all 10 WP chairs in mid December

Quote

 

Dear Waterway Partnership Chair

I refer to 'The APPG for Waterways Report into the Inquiry into the Progress and Future Aims of the Canal & River Trust Waterway Partnerships April 2013'. In particular -

Recommendation 3: To ensure that Partnerships have clarity of their financial role and that funding from the Partnerships beyond their operating costs are used within that local Partnership's region.

and

Recommendation 4: Waterway Partnerships should approach LEPs, LAs, the business community and other bodies to develop joint bids for funding and secure support for the Waterway Partnerships and its projects.

and

Recommendation 5: Waterway Partnerships should continue to develop relationships with LAs, LEPs and the local business community with an aim to be self-funded in all their activities by the end of 2014.

I also refer PROGRESS REPORT ON THE STRATEGIC WATERWAY PLANS – SEPTEMBER 2013 (DECISION REPORT CRT58C) and attach a copy.

You will note that part of this report reads (my bold) -

The Partnerships are continuing to work on their Action Plan. The Action Plans will include a wide range of projects ranging from strategic projects such as the resolution of the water supply on the Rochdale Canal and major investment to secure the future of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal, to community engagement, engagement with young people with linkage to the skill/employability agenda, and the natural health service access improvements and habitat enhancement.

Partnerships are working on the assumption that they will have to secure funding for projects in their Action Plans. With local knowledge and contacts they may be able to forge new partnerships and secure significant grants to fund their projects. However, the Trust may choose to provide match funding for strategic initiatives on a project-by-project basis. Work is in hand to establish the costs of the Action Plans at a macro level, for the guidance of Trustees, and indicative funding sources. These estimates will be part of the SWP.


Unfortunately, I am unable to find a copy of your (three year) Action plan on the Trusts website.

Can you please -

- Email me a copy of the original Action Plan.

- Provide details of any funding obtained by your Partnership for projects within the Plan.

- Provide details of any match funding provided by the Trust.


Kindest Regards

Allan Richards

 

Response from WP chairs has been disappointing. Not a single chair has provided any information.