Great Debate

[StewartC]

Very little has agitated this forum quite as much as the EA's disposal of lock properties, so it's here this month's Great Debate poll belongs.

For those not familiar with MBM, or its Great Debate, each month we ask a question and invite two protagonists to take a side, either 'yes', or 'no'. This month's question is 'Will the sale of lock houses harm the Thames?'

So cast your vote below, and if you've got any comments left in you on this issue, let's hear them. The results of the poll will be printed in an upcoming issue of the magazine.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Comparisons with the Medway or canal system are not entirely fair. The Medway has far less traffic and the canals are relatively shallow and do not really flow.

 

[DogsBody]

Undoubtedly yes. While the sale of the houses will raise some money, it is a drop in the ocean compared to what the EA needs and a short term fix at best.

With the loss of their houses the lock keepers will expect a lot higher salary but the EA has no money to pay them, so we end up with fewer lock keepers.

Without lock keepers certain locks will be chaotic on busy days, lock keepers generally try to fill the lock (with boats) before working it, I have seen so called "experienced" boaters shut other boats out when there is clearly plenty of room left inside. Queues will be long and tempers will rise.

The keepers also spend (their own) time tending the lovely lockside gardens that are a feature of the waterway, a "9 to 5" bod who turns up for the day then goes home isn't going to care about the gardens, so we will end up with tarmac everywhere on "health and safety grounds".

Not to mention the various safety issues that have already been raised on this forum and as mentioned above, I do not believe it is appropriate to compare the Thames with the canal system or Medway.

We are having to face large license increases year upon year, yet the EA give little in return.

Darren.

 

[TrueBlue]

I am more concerned on three main points:-

<ul type="square">
Once the lockside houses have been sold, they cannot be replaced (in situ), indeed they could even be remodelled to suit the new owner's taste.

On a safety basis if there is no resident lock-keeper serious injury, death or damage to property may ensue as a result of delayed response, indeed there is even the possibility of malicious damage.

From the public point of view that locks will become less of an attraction if they are not cared for by a resident (gardens and other "attractions"). The public are encouraged to stop, or even walk to a lock to partake in gongoozling, teas and ice-creams on sale and so on. There is precious little feel good in this country today, and even less to encourage the masses to get away from tv / computer games.
[/list]

 

[boatone]

[ QUOTE ]
We are having to face large license increases year upon year, yet the EA give little in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

Council Tax seems to rise year on year with a decreasing level of service so whats different?

How do you propose to resolve the problem?

(Serious question and not being flippant.)

 

[Flashheart]

Well like has been posted before, its not just the Thames that is suffering. British Waterways are cutting back projects on the Canal Network at a worrying rate because of lack of funds. Unless the Git at number ten that none of us got the chance to vote for, gets of his self glorifying fat arse and starts injecting money back into this county rather than others, then I can't see any other way out of the mess thats occurring. Especially whilst the EA is running around like headless chickens knocking the "Family Silver" off the shelf!

 

[Geoffs]

Got to say that, from what I have seen, that the sale of lock side houses will harm the river, for all sorts of reasons, including those detailed here.

However, according to the statement from the EA, they are not proposing to sell lock side houses, only their properties away from the river. How much substance that has, I don't know, and if true, is it the thin end of the wedge?

The other thing that strikes me. Who is going to buy a lock side residence. I know water side properties are in demand, but would anyone really want a succession of boats going through their 'front garden'. It would detract from privacy, even though most are first class types like us /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[TrueBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
Got to say that, from what I have seen, that the sale of lock side houses will harm the river, for all sorts of reasons, including those detailed here.

However, according to the statement from the EA, they are not proposing to sell lock side houses, only their properties away from the river. How much substance that has, I don't know, and if true, is it the thin end of the wedge?

The other thing that strikes me. Who is going to buy a lock side residence. I know water side properties are in demand, but would anyone really want a succession of boats going through their 'front garden'. It would detract from privacy, even though most are first class types like us /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by "lockside houses", managements (not limited to EA) are well versed by cooking the facts to suit their purposes. For example:-

Penton Hook
Quite a nice large house opposite the upper third of the lock, but separated by a footpath so not "lockside"......

Old Windsor
One of a pair, bang in the middle of the lockside, and with no road access. Presently occupied by a permanent relief so "not operational".
The problem with this one is that to protect any non EA purchaser, they'll have to erect fences and childproof netting (!). That will cause operational difficulties for all.

Bell Weir
right by the lock, large house separated by a footpath....

Sunbury No:2
OK this one's a bit more valid, 75yds upstream, again separated by a footpath, but near enough to run to help..

Those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

Quite apart from the more relevant issues, these buildings, even though a mix of architecture are still distinctive and form part of the landscape. Perhaps they should be Listed - and Grade II at least. A helluva lot of people enjoy trekking miles and miles just to view buildings and structures. However, that doesn't put cash into kitties - and that's the problem. Because these Quango jobs are filled on a rotation basis, no-one has to live with these awful decisions.

 

[boatone]

OK, I've slept on it so heres a few observations.

1. Your question is far too simplistic. How the hell can we KNOW if selling off the lock cottages will harm the Thames? Ok, pedantic if you will but I would have preferred "Do you BELIEVE selling off the lock cottages will harm the Thames" To that I would immediately answer YES, not because of purely financial/safety/welfare issues but because I truly believe the Thames is a national asset and the lock properties are part of its fundamental infrastructure.

2.Have you examined /read the various documents on the EA website re the 2020 vision plan etc? Lots of apparently conflicting and difficult to support assumptions but also statements that they have consulted widely (See the appendices)

3. It would appear that the amount of additional funding needed to bring the Thames up to full standard service is only around £12-15 million per annum. In national expenditure terms that is PETTY CASH !!!!

When I first heard the proposals to dispose of/ rent out the lock cottages all my instincts screamed 'Don't do it' and they still do. On the other hand the EA appear to be acting under central government instructions to dispose of property not justified by operational need. How do we know what the truth is? How do we know if every avenue has been explored? How do we know how much EA are, and are able to, think outside the box in exploring new ways to increase revenue? How do we know that whatever income the EA derive from sales will actually increase the funds available as opposed to comensurate reductions being made in grant funding?

Too many questions and nowhere near enough answers.

Here's an interesting question......how much would each local authority on the non tidal Thames need to contribute to solve the problem and remove the funding issue from central government altogether, whilst at the same time placing a responsibility on the communities most involved with the river?

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
On the other hand the EA appear to be acting under central government instructions to dispose of property not justified by operational need
>>>

Having had to review this sort of thing once there can be an element of constant tightening of the "operational need" criteria in order to get the imposed savings. Such tightening can end up going way beyond prudence, or even, the nightmare scenario, become a p1ssing contest between uninteretsed and uninvolved bean counters trying to score brownie points.

 

[Chris_d]

I think the Thames needs to be given some kind of "National Park" or "Heritage site" status and a new way of funding it found. Perhaps local authorities would be charged to maintain parts in their region in a similar way that they have to maintain roads etc... however sounds a bit uncoordinated, a body such as the old Thames Conservancy would be needed to set certain standards. However there do seem to be some advantages to a large organisation like the EA, for example pulling the survey vessel off coastal duties to survey the shoals on the river.
Trouble is money has to come from somewhere and there just aint enough to go round at the moment /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[DogsBody]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are having to face large license increases year upon year, yet the EA give little in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

Council Tax seems to rise year on year with a decreasing level of service so whats different?

How do you propose to resolve the problem?

(Serious question and not being flippant.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think my council tax has gone up 12% and to be fair to them, at last they seem to be resurfacing some of the roads around here so I can get to work without needing a land rover.

As to how to resolve the problem of river funding, to be honest I don't know what the solution is but selling assets for a quick cash injection doesn't sound like the right answer.

I think the general consensus is that the EA need extra funding from government / council level.

Darren.

 

[Redski]

I have read with great interest the many well informed inputs to this debate. I cannot help but support those whose 'instinct' tells them that selling off or 'renting' lockside' ish properties is wrong. It is wrong for so many reasons operationally but more frustratingly it is wrong because the motive is ,it would appear, short-termist political 'kudos' for those in a position to benefit from that 'kudos'.
Listening to managers who tell us that 'because nothing has changed for so many years ' doesn't mean that what exists is wrong!!!! The EA set out some years ago to encourage more 'annually registered boats onto the river' What happened? How much has been spent on marketing and sales and press promotion? To what effect? How much extra has come back in to the kitty as a result? If the answer is the one I expect then ,if the current users are asked as to where they would prefer having their money spent what do we think the answer would be?
Lockhouses or adverts?