Latest bad news for river users

apollo

apollo

...
Joined
12 Sep 2003
Messages
3,543
Location
Thames
Visit site
It saddens me to read this....

READ IT HERE

Is there any hope for the river with these numpties running things??

I love the admition of Rob Sutton in section 5 who has previously no river experience and worked for Royal Mail before EA......(another national institution no bl00dy use to man nor beast)

Thought that maybe we would be better off with British Waterways until I read this....
BWB just as bad...

Still at least we have a good weekends weather to look forward to.....oh, where is my valium!
 
I didn't think the BWB one was too bad. They are looking at unlicensed boats, charging extra for wide beam plus other measures.

As regards ENVAG did you honestly expect they would appoint anyone with a modicum of maritime knowledge?
 
I agree that reading the EA document is depressing. Looking solely at the notes of the meeting gives me a depressing sense of deja vu from my time dealing with less than organised Government Departments (mind, I'm not saying the private sector is always better!).

I can almost feel the meeting from the notes, with the slightly complacent, 'we know best' attitude of the EA personnel - 'have to come clean..... have no experience of waterways ..... heading major review, this may be advantage as I won't have pre-conceived ideas .... asking silly questions' oh please. And the pure exasperation of the boating reps who are trying to make sense from the documents and statements they are being presented with.

Possibly worst of all though is the revelation (to me .... maybe you all knew) that there is no business plan for the Thames - how can they do this? Business and Corporate plans are the very heart of the civil service these days. Whether they are effective of course is a different matter. But how you run a river without an overall plan beats me.

I really do wish all user reps the best of luck - faced with the level of naivete of EA (and I think that's what it is rather than incompetence or malice) they are going to have a tough, and frustrating, time over the next couple of years.
 
I was impressed by the quality and quantity of the notes - and the discussions in the meeting.

At least there's a group who can make their feelings known to EA (whether EA take any constructive notice is another matter).

I note that all the chairmen of RUGs are boat owners. I must reconsider my attitude to them. Question is which section to join?
 
I have a suggestion.

All senior ENVAG staff with river responsibilities must own and maintain a boat, which will be over 15sqm, be subject to BSS, and paid for out of their own pockets. They must use the boat for a minimum of one weekend a month, to be attempted regardless of river conditions etc. This shall be a condition of continued employment.

That'll learn 'em:-)
 
"All senior ENVAG staff with river responsibilities must own and maintain a boat"

Look out for some impressive wage claim increases next year then as apparently it is quite expensive to keep a boat on the Thames,still they can always put up the boat license fees to pay for the wage rise ........... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
The cash for capital/maintenance investment is £6.3m not £3.6m out of interest. There are 'official notes' of the meeting if anyone is interested.

I have a canoe.........
 
Yes, by all means would be interested to see the EA notes...

Can you provide a URL to download them?

I see a common failing in the constant EA stand on "Capital" investment. Although it is to be applauded, just maintaining the assets will not carry the river forward long term.

The balance is not right.

You will end up with immaculate locks and houses, but a river that a Dachsund can walk across.....

That will please the "Permanent Cruisers" as once they are ensconced in a nice part of the river, they wont have to move!!

The survey last year of boaters came through pretty conclusive in the way I read it from the EA download as the things that boaters value....?
Question is, are you going to take it on board and do what the boaters want or hire more moneywasting consultants...?
 
The bit about Notices for 24 hour moorings stating 2nd Night £5...after that £50 seems to infer that staying on a 24 hour mooring for 48hours will now be ok for a fiver. Who will collect??? This will also exacerbate the problem as honest people will stay for 48 hours thus reducing mooring availability.

PLEASE PLEASE condone overnight mooring in lock laybyes (but not within say 25 metres of the lock) and recognise that it is the quickest, easiest and cheapest way of providing more overnight mooring capacity. The cheeky buggers do it already ( 2 NB's moored on the sanitary station space at Shepperton last Saturday night at 10pm and left Sunday morning before 8 am. It happens all the time !)
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have a canoe.........

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good enough - got to cater for minority interests.

Welcome!

A second thought - I wondered why so may Portage facilities are being upgraded.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif


(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
 
I like Andrews comment that they should buy a boat and all that entails and visit it at least once a month.... sadly many existing boat owners don't do that.

8% - hmmm almost the present rate of inflation (I have a boat so ergo will never have any money!). They complain numbers are dwindling and put up the rates to compensate. They should follow the business plan and long term strategy document that all centrally funded organisations are obliged to provide.
Boating - isn't it fun. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
As regards ENVAG did you honestly expect they would appoint anyone with a modicum of maritime knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats so special about managing the Thames as to require 'maritime' knowledge?

Surely, the river management falls into two main categories - flood/flow control and amenity management.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Whats so special about managing the Thames as to require 'maritime' knowledge

[/ QUOTE ]

If they actually had some they wouldn't have hired Consultants who told them that they didnt need to dredge it any more.

Turn it around the other way - what possible advantage is someone from Royal Mail going to bring to the party??? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
If they actually had some they wouldn't have hired Consultants who told them that they didnt need to dredge it any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

That simply means they didnt hire the right consultants /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Actually, it would be nice to nail down this alleged decision that the river doesnt need dredging. The geography of rivers was definitely a key element of geography lessons when I was at school and the sedimentary activity of meanders etc and the creation of oxbow lakes. Scouring the outside of bends and depositing on the insides was the stuff of reality - i seem to remember being dragged down to Eynsham in Kent on a field study of such things.

No doubt the EA will point out that their remit is to maintain certain depths "in the main channel" which leaves riparian owners to maintain bankside depths. However, there is little point in a 4foot draft boat navigating upriver if it is unable to berth alongside when it reaches its destination.

Sadly, I suspect that any arguments about boaters bringing added prosperity to local traders will fail to pass any serious attempt at public expenditure justification when it comes to dredging at places like Marlow, Henly, Windsor, Eton, Wallingford etc etc.

However, the experiences that several of us have had this year of finding the bottom at Caversham, above and below Clifton Hampden and below Abingdon bridge surely must be down to the 'main channel' maintenance?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As regards ENVAG did you honestly expect they would appoint anyone with a modicum of maritime knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats so special about managing the Thames as to require 'maritime' knowledge?

Surely, the river management falls into two main categories - flood/flow control and amenity management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Tony, are you deliberately being obtuse or are you at the wind-up? Maritime knowledge covers the whole spectrum of things that float. To have training or experience of running a Leisure Centre doesn't give them any know-how on currents, wash, wake, bank erosion, anglers. Even the humblest Narrowboater that has one season under their belt would do a better job than a glorified postman that doesn't know the flat and from the pointy end.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Tony, are you deliberately being obtuse or are you at the wind-up? Maritime knowledge covers the whole spectrum of things that float.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesnt - maritime means of or pertaining to the sea. The non tidal Thames is about as far away from the sea as you can get in this country.

[ QUOTE ]
To have training or experience of running a Leisure Centre doesn't give them any know-how on currents, wash, wake, bank erosion, anglers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesnt, but that doesnt mean you need MARITIME knowledge to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that much of the infrastructure work on the Thames is more akin to civil engineering.

[ QUOTE ]
Even the humblest Narrowboater that has one season under their belt would do a better job than a glorified postman that doesn't know the flat and from the pointy end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now its my turn to ask you if you've lost the plot /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I pretty much stick by what I said earlier....the Thames is all about flood/flow management and one hopes there's at least a few peeps in the EA that should be knowledgeable in that, and amenity management which includes suitability for purpose - including dredging, provision of moorings, licencing and supervision, promoting tourism, and other recreational activities etc etc. A good manager should be able to get the right people round him/her to ensure the necessary skills are in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top