A question on Lock keeper houses

[Captain Coochie]

Why do "you" not want the lock keepers to lose their houses ?

My first thoughts where , hang on , they are my mates .
Second , why do they need to change things .
Third , Now the kids are going to smash all the boats up with no one with a uniform to tell them to bugger off .
Fourth , The bosses need to be seen to be doing something .

 

[Coastgal]

For me, it's more of a reassurance that there's someone there on the riverside who KNOWS the river and the problems that can arise. Particulary with all the flooding we're getting on a regular basis. It's really handy being able to pull up at the lockside and know that the resident lockie will give me the lowdown on what's happening with the river.

Plus, surely it's a bit of British nautical history which we just can't afford to lose.

 

[No Regrets]

My first thoughts are one of basic safety.

The River itself is fairly safe, as far as boating goes. Locks are potentially dangerous though, with all those boats jostling in, people hopping around the deck playing hoop-la and all that turbulent water.

Somebody has to set a standard!

Issues of flooding and vandalism are potentially more expensive in monetary terms of course, but the quality of our Lockies are a major contributory factor in the tiny numbers of injuries, and the apparent zero number of deaths on the Thames.

The EA may have blood on their hands yet. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[apollo]

All this is based on reports from "consultants"

They had some consultants in a few years ago that said they did not need to dredge as the river would take care of itself by self-clearing during the floods - well that went well!

More recently they had some bunch of consultants/accountants that said they have to spend 3% of the value of their assets every year in maintenance. Thats where they get the figures from that they cannot cope with the current budget. I cannot remember the exact value they put on their assets so wont put the wrong value down here.

Thats why they figure if they flog off a load of assets, they will need less budget.

I dispute that every single asset they own needs 3% spending on it every year.
Its flawed.

If they stopped wasting money on graduates trained in running hotels and expensive consultants and actually used the considerable experience in their ranks that are still left (most sadly already gone), the whole river would not be deteriating so rapidly.

I think we have all put up with a load of stupid cock ups from them in recent years (BSS, 8Kph speed limit over the ground, loss of uniforms, not able to clean lock sides....) and we have all seen the numbers on the river nosedive from what it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Personally this is kind of the last straw, what next? /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[No Regrets]

A Lock-keepers house will not only be a long term appreciating asset, but WILL earn more than it ever costs to maintain.

Reckon it's rentable value to a live-in employee at a nominal £700 a month, thats £8400 p.a income.

3% of a nominal £300,000 value is £9000 p.a upkeep.

How do they spend that amount? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[apollo]

Thats my point, and you are only valuing at 300K.

I know I dont spend 9K a year on mine.

Thats why the whole thing is flawed.

 

[No Regrets]

I went in at very conservative figures either way...

I couldn't spend £1000 p.a on my house if I tried, but appreciate a Victorian one could swallow up an average of £1500 p.a in terms of painting, guttering etc. perhaps £2000 if you wanted to keep it pristine.

But it's still going to earn around £10K a year in rent, and, as somebody else mentioned, they are well and truly paid for!

Perhaps a fund raising excercise would be to Mortgage each house for, say £100K each, which would easily be paid by the rental, raising £3,000,000 assuming there are 30 such properties, which would, in turn raise revenue by around £150K per annum in interest alone.

That should pay for 6 Lock-keepers wages, if their claims of low pay are correct.... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Brayman]

I understand it is DEFRA that are forcing the issue on the sale of assets rather than making them a revenue stream. The EA would indeed prefer to rent them out but their hands are tied. It seems Gordon Brown needs all the cash he can get so he can pay the sons and daughters of his MPs to pretend to be in gainful employment.

 

[No Regrets]

So the EA just roll over and kiss ass then, instead of insisting the Lock Keepers should be on site for safety issues?

The cost of one flood or one Death could exceed the entire EA wage bill in any 12 month period. These people really don't get it do they?

Peasants /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[jecuk]

Like many decisions of this type, it is easy to focus on conspiracies and more convoluted explanations. In reality, they are usually done because they seem like a good idea to someone with little knowledge on the subject who needed to raise some cash for the department. ie incompetence somewhere within EA/DEFRA. The way to overturn these things is to write to the EA and your MP. The department itself is highly unlikely to shift positions as, in the end, to do so would be embarrassing.

 

[lockkeeper1964]

I have it on good authority that the starting wage for a lockkeeper is £13k, with a top of the scale lockkeper earning £18k....

They really do mean it when they tell you that they don't do the job for the money....

 

[No Regrets]

Including accomodation? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[lockkeeper1964]

I am told that a resident lockkeeper generally banks on average about £1k a month after stoppages, but that includes payment enhancements for working 5 out of 7 weekends, that is Saturdays and Sundays for 5 consecutive weeks. They are also obliged to work MOST bank holidays
They are then responsible for Gas, Electric and Telephone bills in the houses they are in. I am told that leaves barely enough money to feed a family and perhaps run an old banger.

 

[Grehan]

[ QUOTE ]
The EA would indeed prefer to rent them out but their hands are tied.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm an outsider to this conversation, but in France the VNF has a similar asset/maintenance problem and lots more lock cottages, many in a parlous condition following the inevitable reduction in canal manpower and the 'automation' of locks. The cottages are regarded as a national treasure, maybe not on a par with the Louvre, but valued nonetheless. So they are not being sold off (a very few were, on non-VNF waterways).
The VNF is currently trialling letting them on long-term leases for a modest rent, the twin provisos being (a) you have to spend your own money on the renovation and (b) they have to be then used to benefit the locality and the network. More info > www.frog-property.com <

 

[BrendanS]

Seems like a very reasonable compromise, rather than losing them forever.