Dont just ignore this !

[boatone]

A couple of days ago I posted the link to the DEFRA consultation relating to the new 'NAtional Waterways Charity' and the need to submit views by 30th June.

The three documents inovlved run to 134 pages so I will forgive anyone (all?) who have not bothered to read it carefully.

However, I did carry out a mean little trick by scanning the documents for the word 'Thames'

This appear only three times in the Impact Assessment document, all on page 17 and in the following paragraph:

Including the Environment Agency navigations in the new waterways Charity (Option 3)
As set out in the consultation document, broadening the charity’s scope to include the Environment Agency navigations (including Anglian waterways, the Medway and Thames) would potentially bring additional financial and non-financial resources for the charity and to the EA navigations network. Including these navigations would expand the potential fundraising base to include 30,000 boat owners and the millions of people who live near to the EA navigations (particularly the Thames) which would increase the number of people who are most likely to be interested in giving and volunteering. By extrapolating the market research and fundraising potential for British Waterway’s network, British Waterways estimates (based upon relative lengths of waterways) that the additional resources to the charity of operating EA navigations could build up to the order of £2 to £2.7 m in net voluntary income.10
Again, such figures are highly illustrative but can be firmed up once the charity is under way and fundraising potential is tested on the ground.
This additional income could be invested in EA navigation assets or more broadly in the charity’s network. Whilst a larger charity base and network is likely to give rise to additional operating costs it would also increase the potential for synergies and further economies. There would be other, less quantifiable advantages, such as enhancing wider community engagement, and strengthening the brand, profile and reach of the Charity.[/b]

If you are interested in the future of the Thames we have until 30th June to respond - DON'T JUST IGNORE IT !

 

[TrueBlue]

A couple of days ago I posted the link to the DEFRA consultation relating to the new 'NAtional Waterways Charity' and the need to submit views by 30th June.

The three documents inovlved run to 134 pages so I will forgive anyone (all?) who have not bothered to read it carefully.

However, I did carry out a mean little trick by scanning the documents for the word 'Thames'

This appear only three times in the Impact Assessment document, all on page 17 and in the following paragraph:


If you are interested in the future of the Thames we have until 30th June to respond - DON'T JUST IGNORE IT !

You beat me to it.

I read most of the document, and when I woke up, the only point that I found useful was the bar chart showing who used the canals. I t would appear from that, less than 10% of users (boaters!) made any direct contribution to their upkeep.

My guess is that the pattern is roughly similar on the River.
Uncle Tone is so much better at photomographical and manipulation of graphics then I, a mere mortal - perhaps he could copy the table here?

 

[Captain Coochie]

Do we not want that then ?

 

[apollo]

I am probably being thick (cue Pheran) but in my defence I am tired as its Sunday evening.....

the point of this is what?

Cannot see anything too contentious?

 

[TrueBlue]

I am probably being thick (cue Pheran) but in my defence I am tired as its Sunday evening.....

the point of this is what?

Cannot see anything too contentious?

On the face of it, I would agree with you.

However,

In essence the river navigations are dismissed as being something that could / should be added later - the assumption being that they are merely a subset of the canal system where the same conditions would apply.

A major structural difference is that BW owns the whole track, towpaths, bridges and infrastructure. That's definitely no so on the Thames and probably for the other rivers as well.

Although the canals provide a useful drainage system, their contribution to flood relief is small - most of them discharge into rivers at some point.

IMHO it would be foolish to transfer flood control of major rivers to a charity.

More than half the Thames lockkeepers duties are devoted to river flow management and flood control as directed by EA's central system. Could that be done by volunteers???

The suggestion that function could in future be managed by a team of "flying pickets" is not credible.

The net result is that if the rivers were "charitized" flood control would be handled separately by EA and there would be no justification to retain the lockies or their houses. That would ruin the essential character of the Thames at least.

Have a look at the Nene as an example; pretty river, no lockies, and not a lot of traffic either...


That's why, not so much a fear of the unknown, more a plea for some serious thought on the differences between canal and river navigations and how the status quo could be maintained by constructive management on all sides.