Call me a cynic if you must .......

[boatone]

The continuing reductions in Grant in Aid (government funding) for the EA rivers and, in particular the non tidal Thames, will, unless new major sources of funding can be found, inevitably result in further reductions in service levels. I think we must continue to expect further increases in licence fees but these are not likely to be of a level that will be capable of restoring the balance when compared to the sums being removed from GiA.

So, why am I a cynic?

We now have the Canal and River Trust and it would be really bizarre if, sooner or later, government does not go ahead and transfer the recreational rivers to that body where they will no longer be a source of extreme irritation to Defra and the EA. It would appear that the main reason the transfer was not carried through earlier this year was the cost to government of providing an attractive enough dowry to enable the C&RT to accept the transfer.

The more that service levels are reduced (and therefore users expectations of what constitutes acceptable service) and the further GiA funding continues to fall, the lower the cost will be of a dowry when the time comes.

As I said - me, a cynic ......... ? Is there a hidden agenda here? You might say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[apollo]

you're not Scottish are you?

 

[oldgit]

They are going to have to reduce expenditure or increase income.
Doubt anybody not associated with or benefiting directly from the waterways will be willing to pay.

 

[boatone]

They are going to have to reduce expenditure or increase income.
Doubt anybody not associated with or benefiting directly from the waterways will be willing to pay.

Increasing income significantly is highly unlikely given the restraints that the EA face from needing to conform with Treasury rules. For instance, they cannot arbitrarily decide to charge people for swimming in the river. Nor do they have any apparent opportunity to earn profit income from hydropower installations in the weirs. There is also the danger that every extra pound of direct revenue raised provides Mr Osborne and his gannets with the opportunity to reduce GiA by a further pound - unless the money is raised for a specific purpose such as the licence fees.

 

[oldgit]

Have no idea about this,but suspect the money raised from river users is tiny fraction of the total funding needed to keep the river open for use by the leisure industry.
It may have been fine to award large sums of money to non vital assets when the country felt awash with money but we know that those days are gone.
Somebody is going to have to take a rather sharp knife to the rather splendid structure that exists at the moment and we are just going to have to manage with the basic foundations left behind.
If you actually enjoy your boating,this really should not be a game changer for all but a few.The waterway will still be there,it will merely be a case of doing a bit more yourself.
At worst it may just mean that the Thames is no longer used as some liquid extension of the M25 and the ability to "do" 6 locks or certain distance in day is a given.
It may even give the river back some of its tranquility.If you know you cannot get to some far flung destination in the 48 hours of your weekend you may as well slow down a bit.

 

[TrueBlue]

Have no idea about this,but suspect the money raised from river users is tiny fraction of the total funding needed to keep the river open for use by the leisure industry.

Agree with that in general. However, I don't subscribe to the concept that the River can be managed "without locks" as the weirs-don't need- managing brigade would have it. There is an element of navigability enshrined in Magna Carta and following legislation which has to be observed (unless Dave and his pals decide to change all that). The infrastructure needs to be maintained and that needs reasonable access by water. So locks are necessary for passage.

It may have been fine to award large sums of money to non vital assets when the country felt awash with money but we know that those days are gone.

I don't think that money has been frittered away in the past by providing OOT facilities. Quite the contrary IM(H)O, Local EA management have improved lock access and equipment over the years in a prudent - and perhaps a parsimonious way over the years and I would congratulate them in giving the boating community a workable system. - even if there are some items that have not been well designed.


Somebody is going to have to take a rather sharp knife to the rather splendid structure that exists at the moment and we are just going to have to manage with the basic foundations left behind.

If you actually enjoy your boating,this really should not be a game changer for all but a few.The waterway will still be there,it will merely be a case of doing a bit more yourself.

Fred, I'm not bothered for myself and perhaps by proxy, many users of these fora. BUT, BUT, BUT there are many folks who could not manage the infrastructure on their own. If they are not included, then the River will become a vehicle for committed enthusiasts only - and that is BAD

At worst it may just mean that the Thames is no longer used as some liquid extension of the M25 and the ability to "do" 6 locks or certain distance in day is a given.
It may even give the river back some of its tranquillity.If you know you cannot get to some far flung destination in the 48 hours of your weekend you may as well slow down a bit.

I don't believe that many of the passages are made by the-rushing-through mob. Yes, folks are impatient, but such peeps only navigate in peak season, leaving 8 or 9 months of the year for those who like to cruise. Regardless of the above the M25 mentality only make it to the next watering hole - so soon disappear.

People are beginning to realise that boating (and outdoor activities) are well worth pursuing and I for one am concerned that the assets of the River may well disappear by the time that the iPad generation realise that there is more to life than sitting at a keyboard for hours on end...


Methinks, if it's not willy envy that you have, it's Navigation envy....



ps Now that my evening dining pleasure has been delayed, I can add a bit more -
Yes, boaters should contribute a reasonable amount to access the River,
Yes, there should be some parity between different classes of users,
However, there should be some acknowledgement that there is a benefit to the Public by having active use of the waterway. For example, who would go and look at a stinking ditch, without the joy of watching some user struggling with a lock, or a fisherman casting his line into a tree?
This can't be quantified in monetary terms. That's why LAs provide footpaths and for other purposes - museums, parks ad the like.

There has to be a balance somewhere.
Sadly, I don't know how that can be achieved.


Discuss (please)

 

[oldgit]

Methinks, if it's not willy envy that you have, it's Navigation envy....

Discuss (please)[/QUOTE]

Oooo.
That fighting talk.I will hold your coat.

Exactly how do you intend funding the river at its current level of leisure activity, if existing contributors refuse to pay more,new income streams will be difficult/impossible to tap and the EA will be spending its funding over the entire waterways network . ?
People are leaving boating in droves,even the well heeled are balking at the expence.Take a look round any marina and see the boats which have not moved for months/years.
Anybody owning a boat is certainly not poverty stricken and nobody is going to feel sorry for boaters who feel hard done by.
Time to pay up or get what you pay for. ?

 

[hartcjhart]

Methinks, if it's not willy envy that you have, it's Navigation envy....

Discuss (please)

Oooo.
That fighting talk.I will hold your coat.

Exactly how do you intend funding the river at its current level of leisure activity, if existing contributors refuse to pay more,new income streams will be difficult/impossible to tap and the EA will be spending its funding over the entire waterways network . ?
People are leaving boating in droves,even the well heeled are balking at the expence.Take a look round any marina and see the boats which have not moved for months/years.
Anybody owning a boat is certainly not poverty stricken and nobody is going to feel sorry for boaters who feel hard done by.
Time to pay up or get what you pay for. ?[/QUOTE]

as you say fees must rise or new blood must come into boating,the problem with the latter is that many people think it is a very expensivehobby which it need not be,also many think it is a very 'snobbish' pastime and when you read some of the comments on this forum you can see why.
the caravan(a boat on land) industry was suffering badly BUT managed to attract more newbies as people saw it as a cheapish holiday,
the holiday boat companies could do a helluva lot more to attract people BUT when they want apx 1400 a week for a boat holiday people will baulk at paying,when they can get a caravan with entertainment complexes for half that price.
a good start would be more regattas,more try a boat days/weekends at cheap prices,then maybe people would go out and buy a semi decent river cruiser for a couple of three grand ~more licence fees

 

[boatone]

The EA have, in recent years, started to recognise that they have some responsibility/duty/ability to generate income within the restrictions placed on them by Treasury rules. However, these opportunities are largely restricted to activities such as providing catering concessions at lock sites - Molesey is a recent development. For many river based activities, where we users would expect some income to accrue to the river, there appears to be no ability for the EA to levy revenue generating charges over and above any direct costs incurred by the Agency in providing specific services.

Henley Royal Regatta, for instance, continues to be a net financial drain on EA finances costing some £15k this year. How on earth this can be considered reasonable when the HRR is such a huge commercial operation beggars belief, but HRR , apparently, continues to vigorously oppose any suggestion that they should make a more meaningful contribution for their use of the river as a venue for their activities.

The various swimming events that have sprung up in recent years are another example of major use of the river by commercial organisations which cannot be legally charged for their use of the river other than the direct costs associated with any EA attendance for safety purposes etc.

In some locations private landowners derive considerable income from mooring charges paid by boaters but none of this money channels back to support the cost of managing the river. Riverside local authorities no longer pay any contribution to the river management - if the 1932 Thames Conservancy Act provisions had not been written out of subsequent legislation over the years and continued to apply today around £500k a year of present day value income would be coming from that sector. Should I mention Thames Water's derisory contribution for using the river as a resource?

Frankly, the whole issue of sustained funding and financing of the river is a mess and needs to be thoroughly overhauled, hence the TMBA call for a complete review of Thames navigation charges. However, without significant changes in legislation - extremely unlikely with so much pressure on parliamentary business (it took 10 years for the last IWO to become law) - we seem to be well and truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Paradoxically, other than a complete reversal of government attitude to GIA (pigs might fly), the only real opportunity to increase revenue substantially and quickly is the one that boaters are, understandably, most opposed to - a significant increase in licence fees.

 

[hartcjhart]

who gets the income (if any) from the power stations that draw water from the river systems for use as cooling water?

 

[boatone]

who gets the income (if any) from the power stations that draw water from the river systems for use as cooling water?

Not sure but, although there may be income to government, it will not be directly due to the navigation. Only monies raised for specific purpose - e.g. licence fees are raised directly as a contribution to the cost of managing the navigation - are required to be used specifically for that purpose and I believe some 20% or so disappears in overhead contributions to the wider Defra/EA administration (so called "top slicing"). The Treasury spending reviews give rise to the budget allocated to Defra which then decides how much to give to the EA which then, in turn, sets the budget for its subsidiary operational departments - i.e. EA Thames. There is some suggestion that, although Defra will face some 10% further reductions in the coming year, the EA have been told to expect reductions of 15%.

 

[TrueBlue]

who gets the income (if any) from the power stations that draw water from the river systems for use as cooling water?

(AFAIK) There aren't any power stations left on the Thames.
However, we knew a previous manager of Wolvecote paper mill and he complained loudly that the TC charged him when he took water out and charged him again when he put it back in. 'Twas cleaner out than in which rankled a bit.

 

[oldgit]

Were asked by the dutie lockie at Allington why the traffic passing through the lock had declined and any boats that did, tended not to go further up and if there was anything they could do about it.
Some thoughts which apply to the Medway.

Nothing to do with EA but PEEL Ports could get some more rubbish out of the tidal river..not quite as bad as it used to be mind.

Boats have got much larger and most now have flybridges,so basically its just round the corner and up the Farleigh,but only for the brave.
Maidstone Town Centre.Where to start.
At local parks with landing stages ALL No Mooring !
NO **** mooring pins/bollards/rings worth a carrot.
No decent depth of water alongside river wall.
No decent rubbish disposal.
Local bogs sort of alright during the day
Area very noisy at night due to adjacent road.
Very unfriendly and bit daunting locale.
The only half decent bit of mooring is under the bridges and outside the Law Courts but the rings are pain to grab and you will stir up the clag if you draw more than 3ft.
Must say we have moored there for many years and never had problem.

Allington Castle (Not EA) have now installed 7 very posh landing stages just round up stream from lock.Not sure if they are permanent or short term.
Notices on structures,but details far to small to been read by anybody old enough to be able to afford to moor a boat there.