IWA pressing for transfer of EA waterways to C&RT
- Thread starter boatone
- Start date
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
The IWA is also a charity which appears to spend quite a lot on lobbying at high levels. As I understand it the C&RT already has promised government funding of £800M over a 15 year period. Currently they receive a core grant of £39M per annum which is index linked plus a further £10M per year which is to be reduced over the final 5 years. Reports of the maintenance backlog suggest it is well over £300M but they seem to have been coy in giving realisic figures. They have been criticised for having too many highly paid people at the top. It would appear to me that their agenda to take over the Thames from the Environment Agency is seen as yet another opportunity to get further massive funding. Aside from the recent E.A. legal failure I do not see the C&RT as an attractive option. This is only my personal opinion.
ianc1200
Well-Known Member
CART insist you have a recognised boatyard/marina mooring, or are continually cruising, and seem more efficient about sorting out those who don't comply. I'd say yes.
rotrax
Well-Known Member
With all the critisism on here about how badly the EA manage their waterways and the lack of manpower and funds it might actually improve the EA's current waterways...........................................
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
As long as the staff on the ground get the same deal or better and the lock keepers cottages aren't under threat, I think(and sincerely hope)that it would be a good thing.
My only criticism is all the money that any new authority would waste on rebranding when every penny should go on essential services.
My only criticism is all the money that any new authority would waste on rebranding when every penny should go on essential services.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Government will need to provide an agreed funding package to C&RT if the EA waterways are to be transferred. There will also need to be a very clear agreement as to what their responsibilities will be. The C&RT is now a charitable trust and the Trustees will have a duty to ensure that such a transfer would not put the trust at risk. They are therefore able to reject any government proposal that does not enable them to feel secure.
The treasury appears to be saying they cannot afford such a funding package in the current climate so we will continue to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The treasury appears to be saying they cannot afford such a funding package in the current climate so we will continue to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
bumperdump
N/A
There are hundreds of bankside moorings. Are they thinking they can stop a landowner from renting his bankside out for boaters to moor on ?
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
The problem with a take over by the Canal and River Trust is that like Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh many of these charities are poor at doing what they set out to do and not good at explaining why. If reports that the maintenance backlog of the C & RT has increased and getting worse since they took over from BW are correct I am not in favour of them running the Thames.
The Environment Agency has not been beyond criticism particularly with regard to the disposal of dredging equipment and the assertion that the river is self scouring. The construction and handling of the Jubilee River was an expensive mistake for those down river but I doubt whether the C & RT would have done better.
It appears to me that; all too often; running Trusts with vast amounts of public funding is a gravy boat for the administrators at the top. You only have to look at the NHS. Until the C & RT prove their capabilities I hope no further money is allocated to them for taking on the Thames whatever the pressure from the IWA.
Last edited:
rotrax
Well-Known Member
The post was in regard to permanent liveaboards. A landowner who rents his land for moorings is fine, but IIRC living aboard may require planning permission for residential mooring use-not easy to get.
Or keep your head down and be unobtrusive.......................
rotrax
Well-Known Member
IMHO you have made a very poor comparison with Kidscompany and the CRT. Also comparing the CRT with the NHS is
naieve in the extreme-the largest employer in the UK that spends more than the CRT's annual budget in a few days. Get real.
ALL organisations in the public sector are struggling for funds, as are most charities and trusts. There are a few exceptions, RNLI for instance.
However, it appears the EA's funding is going fast, possibly only enough to do basic maintenance and urgent flood control.
It may be, whatever their shortcomings in the short space of time they have been I/C the non EA waterways that they will have the resources to do a better job than the fast reducing in budget and size EA can do.
I suspect it is only a matter of time-it may be for the best.
Last edited:
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
My comparison with Kids Company related to not giving value for money plus a reluctance to answer questions on performance.
My comparison with the NHS related to the many individual trusts that have been similarly criticised for the same reasons. IMHO this is reality.
I know and accept we are lucky that the RNLI does very well due to the voluntary support it receives. However, it too, has at the top administrative management level, been heavily criticised many times.
Last edited:
rotrax
Well-Known Member
I dont believe I have heard much critisism of the CRT's transparency and information supply. The time they have been I/C the ex BWB waterways is hardly long enough for then to make long term decisions-or answer questions with authority.
The IWA are a long standing and well respected group-formed just post war-and would not be supporting the CRT if they were failing in their role.
If you have any hard evidence to support what you are implying I for one would be pleased to see it.
First Mate and I have been boating for nearly 50 years, rivers and canals for all that time, sailing on the ocean for the last 14 as well.
Maintenance has ALWAYS been an issue-as has funding.
Lets be frank, the Thames, if lost to navigation above Teddington, would not affect a substantial number of boaters. Thousands yes, but low thousands. If the EA cant cook it that may be the result-or Thames Boaters take the bull by the horns and pay more! Be involved-take your destiny in your own hands.....................................
On the day Charles and Diana were married, we were at Blisworth Tunnel-one of the longest on the canal system, demonstrating to get it repaired. It cut the canal system into North and South for many.
We like to think it helped as it was funded and fixed a couple of years later.
bumperdump
N/A
Thanking you
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
I suggest you look at the Canal & River Trust Internal Audit Report 753 dated 18 Oct 2013 which gives 52,000 defect notices. It is my understanding that this has now risen to nearly 60,000. The IWA are hand in glove with the C & RT as fellow charities with similar people at the helm of the gravy boats. My opinion you understand.
Further, I don't think that the insignificant number of boaters on the Thames would agree with you viewpoint..
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
The IWA know not-a-lot about the Thames and I suggest have very few Thames based members, so it's easy to make ill formed judgements.
CaRT own their infrastructure - canal, towpath, locks, buildings - if there are any of the latter left...
They rely on EA waters for drainage and their flood relief.
To my mind it's chalk and cheese, but then nobody has any idea what they would take over - if anything.
rotrax
Well-Known Member
Who mentioned insignificant? I said substantial, and measured in the low thousands.
Just a guess, mind, from living close to the River for the last 50 years.
Bottom line is that if the EA cant cope with the Thames as a viable navigation, who else will.
You may not like the CRT but they have responsibility for the majority of navigations in this country.
I would suggest that, taking into account the amount of water, locks, buildings, sanitary stations, bank reinforcements, runnoff weirs, etc, etc, etc, 60,000 defects is probably the norm.
What was on BWB's list when they handed over? I dont suppose you know.
Perhaps they are dealing with the work in a different way, and previously unreported defects are now listed-like the police and crime figures.
I would suggest that it may come to the Thames in the end, and it may not be a bad thing.
None of us are in a position to say for sure, are we?
As far as gravy boats go, this has been done to death re the RNLI. As with all things, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Good staff costs, and any organisation knows that.
The CRT is a fairly new organisation, has not long been in place and you are knocking it already. When was the last time you spent any time on a CRT waterway?
First Mate and I had a week on the Liecester summit in August. A couple of broken bits of paddle winding gear, a bit of paint needed here and there, everything else top notch.
Much, much better than the first time I did the same trip 40 years ago. Lock gates were missing balance beams, paddle gear was worn and could slip dangerously and the bottom was very near the top-had to use our winch twice when we got stemmed up.
I will look with interest at the progress-or lack of it-of the CRT, as I know you will.....................
Last edited:
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
You are clearly a big supporter of the C & RT.
We don’t use the canal system but my wife’s sister and her husband rent out their property for 6 months every year to use their narrow boat. They have covered many canals and rivers all over England including the Bristol Channel with a pilot on board. We were up with them during the year and discussed how things were post British Waterways. Subsequent to this I have used the web for further information.
It was your statement that were the Thames navigation above Teddington to be lost that it would not affect a substantial number of boaters that I took as meaning they were considered an insignificant number.
There is a big difference between what is controlled on the Thames by the E.A. and that controlled in the main by the C & RT as pointed out by TrueBlue.
As you say we will look with interest at the progress or lack of it from the C & RT. I remain not in favour of the proposed handover. I have commented before on the Thames Forum that I could not see why money that would be provided to the C & R T could not be given to the E.A. instead. Irrespective, with all the current Government cut backs it does not look good for the future.
ianc1200
Well-Known Member
"There are hundreds of bankside moorings. Are they thinking they can stop a landowner from renting his bankside out for boaters to moor on ?"
I was thinking of the private landowners renting their moorings out to live aboards or any pemanent moorings. The Broads Authority appear to be their own Planning Authority, and have an enforcement issue with a landowner at Thorpe island Norwich, very much along these lines.
I was thinking of the private landowners renting their moorings out to live aboards or any pemanent moorings. The Broads Authority appear to be their own Planning Authority, and have an enforcement issue with a landowner at Thorpe island Norwich, very much along these lines.
macnorton
Well-Known Member
I know a few boaters from the canals who were against CRT in the beginning but now sing there praise, how could they be worse than what we have with the EA?
Poogy
New Member
Canal and River Trust, alias British Waterways Board is masquerading as a charity but is really a quango as it always was. The staff budget must be cut, the little tin gods with their cushy little sinecures masquerading under the title of "jobs" must be investigated. The rip off where a BSS Certificate supplied by CaRT costs around thirty quid on top of the overpaid boat surveyor must be stopped.
It is about time that Management Consultants are brought in to investigate the wastage of taxpayers and boat owners funds in this organisation which has been going on for years. Also, on the side of taxpayers, the majority of whom do not give a toss about the canals and rivers so why should they subsidise the playground of filthy rich people who can afford to run a boat?
It is about time that Management Consultants are brought in to investigate the wastage of taxpayers and boat owners funds in this organisation which has been going on for years. Also, on the side of taxpayers, the majority of whom do not give a toss about the canals and rivers so why should they subsidise the playground of filthy rich people who can afford to run a boat?