License refunds

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

The National Trust have, I believe, a policy of 'no liveaboards' and 'no CCing'. This in my opinion is one of the reasons they appear to do  good job of managing the Wey Navigation.

 

I can't imagine these policies being popular should they get to take over CRT waters.

But - the NT (or whoever) are unlikely to get the 1995 Act amended so the CCers have nowt to worry about.

 

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

It is unclear what you think is different about the NT that would ensure that it would be so much better placed as to justify the significant costs in making the transfer.

It would save the Government £50m per annum in grants.

 

The NT are a successfully managed charity - they are completely autonomous of Government funding.

All of their income is self-generated from memberships and donations. They generate twice the income that C&RT have with over £200m of membership income alone, and, they manage fixed assets in excess of £1.3 BILLION. (C&RT fixed assets £26.8 MILLION)

They have proven that they can manage a business with similar aims and historical problems and limitations.

 

I commend the move.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Wanderer Vagabond]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

The National Trust have, I believe, a policy of 'no liveaboards' and 'no CCing'. This in my opinion is one of the reasons they appear to do  good job of managing the Wey Navigation.

 

I can't imagine these policies being popular should they get to take over CRT waters.

I'm not sure that we can both be talking about the same Wey navigation since my experience of National Trust's maintenance on that waterway back in 2016 was, to put it politely, not very good. We were delayed entering the navigation because the centre of the bottom gate of Thames Lock had failed causing a very rapid draining of the lock. The very pleasant lock-keeper explained the delay to me saying that the paddle had failed, when I looked at the gate, the hole was nowhere near the paddle, the gate itself had failed, which I pointed out to him. The remedy that was nailed into place the following morning was a piece of 6'x4' marine plywood which 'fixed' it but was hardly ideal. Bowers lock carried a warning about the state of the lock gates and how care should exercised in operating the lock. I loved the navigation but maintenance really wasn't NT's strong suit. For those keen for NT to take over the waterways, if the Wey Navigation is anything to go by, it may well be out of the frying pan and into a very hot fire.

 

(We are CC'ing liveaboards and no-one told us of any adverse policy).

Edited July 28, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 (We are CC'ing liveaboards and no-one told us of any adverse policy).

 

As a short term visitor to the Wey you can be a CRT CCer no problem. But if you want a 12 month River Wey licence you have to have an approved mooring.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

As a short term visitor to the Wey you can be a CRT CCer no problem. But if you want a 12 month River Wey licence you have to have an approved mooring.

And the principal marina on the Wey, Purford, don't permit liveaboards, but this is their policy rather than NT's. If I recall correctly, and this would please a certain poster on here, you don't need to buy the licence to go onto the Wey until you leave Purford marina, so you can keep your unlicensed boat there all year if you wish.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

As a short term visitor to the Wey you can be a CRT CCer no problem. But if you want a 12 month River Wey licence you have to have an approved mooring.

 

And even if you have the mooring, NT will not tolerate you living aboard so I was stold by the manager at Pyrford Marina.

 

I'm not sure hold they would know or enforce it though. Maybe they require a council tax bill for your house before issuing a licence. (Just a guess.)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

18 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And even if you have the mooring, NT will not tolerate you living aboard so I was stold by the manager at Pyrford Marina.

 

I'm not sure hold they would know or enforce it though. Maybe they require a council tax bill for your house before issuing a licence. (Just a guess.)

I'm not sure it is in the 'gift' of NT to tolerate or otherwise whilst you were in Pyrford marina. Since you don't need a licence whilst in the marina, what sanction could NT impose? I agree that is is the policy of Pyrford not to permit permanent liveaboards, they allowed us to remain there for a short period (without said licence) whilst I carried out repairs to the boat (broken water pump).

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I'm not sure it is in the 'gift' of NT to tolerate or otherwise whilst you were in Pyrford marina. Since you don't need a licence whilst in the marina, what sanction could NT impose? I agree that is is the policy of Pyrford not to permit permanent liveaboards, they allowed us to remain there for a short period (without said licence) whilst I carried out repairs to the boat (broken water pump).

 

We weren't discussing pyrford marina policies. He was telling me about NT policy out on the river. I still wasn't sure if he was right though. Never seen it independently stated. Not that I've ever bothered to look.

[TheBiscuits]

47 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Wouldn't any type of transfer away from CRT anyway?

No.  Read Alan's quoted sections of the transfer order posted earlier.

 

Michael Gove can simply order it all be handed over to a qualifying organisation, if he determines that the criteria have been met.

 

I'd give it the RNLI personally, but the National Trust were my first thoughts too.  And I state that as someone who generally supports CRT against the whingers.

 

Just not the IWA under any possible circumstances.

[MtB]

 

Does anyone here know of anyone living aboard on the River Wey or Wey Navigation?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Does anyone here know of anyone living aboard on the River Wey or Wey Navigation?

I seem to vaguely recall that there were a number of boats moored below Godalming Wharf, whether they were permanently occupied I can't say for sure.

[john6767]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Wouldn't "no CCing" require new primary legislation to alter the 1995 act?

You would have thought so.

 

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Wouldn't any type of transfer away from CRT anyway?

What has been quoted is from the act that transfers control to CRT from BW, so the transfer from CRT to another body if they do not perform is already in the legislation.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

It is unclear what you think is different about the NT that would ensure that it would be so much better placed as to justify the significant costs in making the transfer.

For me one clear difference between the CRT and the NT is in the latter you are a member and have the right to vote at the AGM.  Giving you at least some say in how things go.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

28 minutes ago, Jerra said:

For me one clear difference between the CRT and the NT is in the latter you are a member and have the right to vote at the AGM.  Giving you at least some say in how things go.

Compared to their other assets, you'd get a very minor say in how things go. Their main purpose is to generate finance for the upkeep of their assets and they can be quite ruthless how they go about it. Talking to a local at Shuckborough whilst passing through he commented that prior to NT taking over the property, local people could have pedestrian access over the land for a notional annual charge (I think he said something about £10). Once NT took over the site, to get pedestrian access to the grounds they had to become members for £119 pa. When I visited all I wanted to do was take a walk in the grounds, the one-size-fits-all fee however was for both house and grounds, since I didn't want to go in the house I didn't bother with either. Like I said, if NT take over the waterways it could very well be out of the frying pan and into the fire. They have limited experience of waterways upkeep and the one they have, the Wey, is not that well maintained.

[MtB]

9 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Like I said, if NT take over the waterways it could very well be out of the frying pan and into the fire. They have limited experience of waterways upkeep and the one they have, the Wey, is not that well maintained.

 

Yes. 

 

I also think the NT would be very much less accommodating than CRT of boaters in difficulty/taking the piss. CRT (and previously BW) bend over backwards to cut boaters in breach of <whatever> a considerable degree of slack when a plausible story is offered up. I can imagine that stopping dead if/when NT take over the CRT waterways.

[BruceinSanity]

17 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes. 

 

I also think the NT would be very much less accommodating than CRT of boaters in difficulty/taking the piss. CRT (and previously BW) bend over backwards to cut boaters in breach of <whatever> a considerable degree of slack when a plausible story is offered up. I can imagine that stopping dead if/when NT take over the CRT waterways.

Two thoughts (yes, alright, alright):

 

ISTR the history of NT running the S Stratford was not a happy one.

 

Before accepting any new property, NT insist on an accompanying endowment to fund its maintenance and we know that CRT doesn’t have enough income to achieve a steady state. Neither did BW before them, so it’s not all about paying for the new structures.

[Jerra]

10 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Compared to their other assets, you'd get a very minor say in how things go. Their main purpose is to generate finance for the upkeep of their assets and they can be quite ruthless how they go about it. Talking to a local at Shuckborough whilst passing through he commented that prior to NT taking over the property, local people could have pedestrian access over the land for a notional annual charge (I think he said something about £10). Once NT took over the site, to get pedestrian access to the grounds they had to become members for £119 pa. When I visited all I wanted to do was take a walk in the grounds, the one-size-fits-all fee however was for both house and grounds, since I didn't want to go in the house I didn't bother with either. Like I said, if NT take over the waterways it could very well be out of the frying pan and into the fire. They have limited experience of waterways upkeep and the one they have, the Wey, is not that well maintained.

None of your examples has anything to do with voting at an AGM and having some say as a member.

 

When you consider the spread of the NT to set different rules for different people and places e.g. if you can get a ticket to the grounds at Shugbourgh but not at Hill Top in the Lakes.

 

What an individual does (Lord Lichfield) doesn't have to be followed by a business.  In fact what an individual does changes from time to time.  At one point our local stately home owner was charging £5 for access now he doesn't.  Just his choice.

[Chewbacka]

I doubt nt would touch the waterways.  The big difference is that ‘free to visit’ nt places are very low maintenance (things like beaches and coastal paths) and the places like posh houses which are expensive to maintain are all charged.  Unfortunately just about all CRT assets are high maintenance and free to use on foot, so no hope of any revenue.  Boaters aren’t able (as a group) to pay much more than they do now.  NT taking on the waterways would take on a lot of ‘cost’ with no hope of revenue to match.

[Detling]

The National Trust 'restored' the south Stratford. Locks with single bottom gates and not properly balanced, in one case just a few scaffold tubes welded into a bent box and bolted to the top of the gate, a bugger to open, yes there is a bridge there but BW used to put heave weights on their bent beams for balance. There is absolutely no chance of joining the boat as it comes out of the bottom of a lock, very poor lock landings some noticable by their absence. The canal was restored on the cheap, fair enough it was the 1960's and we are lucky they did it, but then they put a class 1 listing on the poorly restored locks and bridges, the Stratford Canal society would like to do the job properly to as things were in 1910 etc but they are not allowed to change anything due to the listing by the NT.  The NT seem very good at restoring houses but they are not boaters, I am not against the NT and I am a membe,r as long as they stick to land and buildings. 

[Mike Todd]

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But - the NT (or whoever) are unlikely to get the 1995 Act amended so the CCers have nowt to worry about.

 

It would save the Government £50m per annum in grants.

 

The NT are a successfully managed charity - they are completely autonomous of Government funding.

All of their income is self-generated from memberships and donations. They generate twice the income that C&RT have with over £200m of membership income alone, and, they manage fixed assets in excess of £1.3 BILLION. (C&RT fixed assets £26.8 MILLION)

They have proven that they can manage a business with similar aims and historical problems and limitations.

 

I commend the move.

Can you let me know the supplier of your rose tinted glasses? I'd quite like a pair.

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, Jerra said:

For me one clear difference between the CRT and the NT is in the latter you are a member and have the right to vote at the AGM.  Giving you at least some say in how things go.

That went well as I recall during the hunting debates. (Just imagine - the wealthy landowners outvote poor boaters so that the canals are maintained just as pretty to look at and walk alongside)

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

.................so that the canals are maintained just as pretty to look at and walk alongside

So you are suggesting retaining the Status Quo !!

Edited July 29, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[thebfg]

23 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

We weren't discussing pyrford marina policies. He was telling me about NT policy out on the river. I still wasn't sure if he was right though. Never seen it independently stated. Not that I've ever bothered to look.

I'm with you. it doesent mention it on their website or in terms and conditions. the licence application does have a box for mooring address notbthat is the only mention.

 

if it is true it is an unofficial rule.

[Tim Lewis]

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 23:48, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Compared to their other assets, you'd get a very minor say in how things go. Their main purpose is to generate finance for the upkeep of their assets and they can be quite ruthless how they go about it. Talking to a local at Shuckborough whilst passing through he commented that prior to NT taking over the property, local people could have pedestrian access over the land for a notional annual charge (I think he said something about £10). Once NT took over the site, to get pedestrian access to the grounds they had to become members for £119 pa. When I visited all I wanted to do was take a walk in the grounds, the one-size-fits-all fee however was for both house and grounds, since I didn't want to go in the house I didn't bother with either. Like I said, if NT take over the waterways it could very well be out of the frying pan and into the fire. They have limited experience of waterways upkeep and the one they have, the Wey, is not that well maintained.

The NT history of running the Southern Stratford wasn't that great either, I think that they were glad to get rid of it to BW.

[ditchcrawler]

The would have hell of a job collecting the entrance fee from non members who visited the canal. I suppose they could put a big high hedge around Foxton, Bingley etc with a turn style. If you think CRT are bad when you disagree with them, then don't cross the NT, they have a big legal team who don't like loosing 

[Mike Todd]

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So you are suggesting retaining the Status Quo !!

I'm not the one advocating wholesale change - it is up to those who are to indicate a better model.

 

In general I am not a fan of schemes that cover up poor management by engaging in a structural change -  which costs an arm and a leg, is extremely ha