Mr Osborne wants to cut another 25% or 40%

[boatone]

The Chancellor is asking unprotected departments to come up with savings plans of 25% and 40% of their budget. This includes DEFRA and the EA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33610801

The Treasury said "large savings" would be required of unprotected departments, which have been asked to model two scenarios: of 25% and 40% cuts to their budgets by 2020.
The BBC's economics editor Robert Peston said what was being proposed would require a reinvention of some services taken for granted by the public.

I shudder to think what the implications are for the non tidal Thames. Certainly, "some services taken for granted by the public" could well include assisted lock passage as at least one example.

 

[DogsBody]

I suspect one or two losses from the higher echelons of the EA's management tier could more than cover the cost of keeping the lock keepers where we all want them. Of course, I realise it is very unlikely that those in the EA's management positions would agree with me...

 

[captain tomas]

Have to agree with DogsBody, we need front line service , e.g. lock and weir staff, not office bound desk persons.
The Thames lock staff are fully capable of running their patches without any input from management to undermine them.

 

[oldgit]

The Chancellor is asking unprotected departments to come up with savings plans of 25% and 40% of their budget. This includes DEFRA and the EA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33610801

I shudder to think what the implications are for the non tidal Thames. Certainly, "some services taken for granted by the public" could well include assisted lock passage as at least one example.

Believe has first asked the departments concerned to produce some ideas of their own,presumably if they do not come up with enough "savings" ,somebody will be sent in to take a good look round. ?
Doubt here is much fat left to trim ?
Wonder if Teddington and Richmond needs manning 24/7 .Perhaps a pre booking system similar to elsewhere.Not sure how much commercial traffic is still around.Leisure boats would just have manage with whatever is going
Especially during winter ? .Perhaps dawn to dusk. ?

 

[teddington_lock]

Richmond is PLA not EA

 

[Alan ashore]

FWIW Richmond lock is not run by EA, but by PLA, who have a very different funding model.

Being based very close to Teddington lock, I must say that I'd be quite happy to have powered self service out of hours or out of season. I would be very unhappy if I had to pre-book passage.

 

[Actionmat]

If the interaction between river users and lock staff was lost then a large part of the character of the river(and what makes it special)would go down the pan.

 

[oldgit]

FWIW Richmond lock is not run by EA, but by PLA, who have a very different funding model.

Being based very close to Teddington lock, I must say that I'd be quite happy to have powered self service out of hours or out of season. I would be very unhappy if I had to pre-book passage.

Having to give 24 hours notice to transit the lock would only be if you wanted to go through out of normal opening hours.
As there is always a bit of future planning involved regards going through due to tides,would not be a lot of extra work to pick up phone and book lock.
However possibly sufficient traffic using Teddington overnight to justify the manning and does there not need to be somebody there 24/7 to control weir ?

 

[Alan ashore]

Having to give 24 hours notice to transit the lock would only be if you wanted to go through out of normal opening hours.
As there is always a bit of future planning involved regards going through due to tides,would not be a lot of extra work to pick up phone and book lock.

Well, as I'm moored pretty much opposite the tail of the lock, future planning is often limited to "It's a nice evening, let's take the boat out - I'll get some beers on the way".

Cheers

 

[teddington_lock]

What happens to the reach above on a high tide , when it's on 'self service' because the lock staff have been let go ?

Boater goes through , opens gates , realises that it's high tide so leaves both sets of gates open ( yes , you can do this ) and Potters away up or downstream thinking 'that'll do the next guy a favour' ... Next guy thinks the same ....

Tide turns .... Reach starts to empty. No way to do a controlled close with the tide now running through the lock. Close the gates and smash them to bits and possibly rip them off ? Or let it go.

It would be like having a roller sluice fully open , a weir 25 feet wide and 20 feet deep ... The 5 mile reach would drain in a few hours I reckon , Turks would be on the bottom as would every other boat. Houseboat moorings and services snapped etc

Millions of pounds worth of damage.

We don't just sit twiddling our thumbs at night waiting for a boat. Coupled with the fact that the river is managed at Teddington Lock out of hours , and has been since 2012. Along with river control and ICS , we keep the river going. Stuck in a lock in the evening ? We are the ones who arrange for someone to rescue you.

Be very careful what you wish for . We aren't just pressing buttons , waving at boaters and drinking tea.

 

[Alan ashore]

Be very careful what you wish for . We aren't just pressing buttons , waving at boaters and drinking tea.

Howard,
we certainly don't wish for unmanned locks, and we do appreciate everything you all do for the river , but we all feel the writing is on the wall, and so we wonder what might be the lesser of various evils. By evils I mean degradation in service up to and including the effective end of navigation on the river.

I would think, incidentally, that simple technology could prevent the drain down scenario, but I don't mean to nay say your point.

 

[TrueBlue]

I've always understood - or mebe assumed - that TL is a Port of Entry and had to be manned 24/7 to deter / catch drug smugglers, illegal entrants and the like.

Or did I get that wrong????

 

[teddington_lock]

I would think, incidentally, that simple technology could prevent the drain down scenario, but I don't mean to nay say your point.

The 'consultants' that came to look at it in the last round of cuts didn't seem to think so.

Current design of gates are unable to be held shut automatically against an incoming tide.

 

[oldgit]

OK........All you Thames boaters....Its time to make up your mind.

Its all fine and dandy to mutter away and carp on the side lines but its 2015 and you/us/them/we have elected a government who promised to reduce taxes and to reduce the size of the state.
Time to find out if its fine for others to suffer the consequences of the ballot box but not us boaters.
What would you cut completely or dramaticaly curtail regards the running of the Thames if the river budget was cut by say 25%.
Suggestions ?

 

[apollo]

Re: OK........All you Thames boaters....Its time to make up your mind.

Its all fine and dandy to mutter away and carp on the side lines but its 2015 and you/us/them/we have elected a government who promised to reduce taxes and to reduce the size of the state.
Time to find out if its fine for others to suffer the consequences of the ballot box but not us boaters.
What would you cut completely or dramaticaly curtail regards the running of the Thames if the river budget was cut by say 25%.
Suggestions ?

make all other river users pay, swimmers, rowers, canoes, royal regattas yada yada. If they dont pay, they dont play!

 

[boatone]

It is not generally understood that the Environment Agency are not free to impose charges as they think fit - their freedom to collect income is limited by the Thames Conservancy Act and subsequent legislation as well as Treasury Rules they must comply with.
In effect, they are between a rock and a hard place. Government is rapidly reducing the level of public purse money allocated to them and, at the same time. they are denied any significant freedom to seek and develop new income streams. Boaters, as the only significant revenue stream are, quite understandably, resisting any attempts to impose further significant increases in registration fees.
The creation of the Canal and River Trust enabled the previous BW to be transferred out of government dependence and they enjoy considerable opportunities to develop new funding. However, Government declined to include EA waterways in the initial setup so we are stuck with continuing exposure to government fiscal policy.
Even if Government decided to transfer EA waterways into CRT now it would require significant commitment of public funding and take several years to achieve - not to mention the likely opposition from many who would not like to see that happen.

 

[Alan ashore]

OK,
The EA will like all departments have to model the next five years with these levels of cut. It seems inconceivable to me that they won't include in that modelling a view of what potential new income streams might be available, and what changes would be required to enable those income streams to be realised. It strikes me that changes to legislation etc. would probably be cheaper and much quicker for Government than the transfer to CRT.

But I guess the question is - what if anything can WE DO to influence the outcome?

 

[boatone]

OK,
The EA will like all departments have to model the next five years with these levels of cut. It seems inconceivable to me that they won't include in that modelling a view of what potential new income streams might be available, and what changes would be required to enable those income streams to be realised. It strikes me that changes to legislation etc. would probably be cheaper and much quicker for Government than the transfer to CRT.
But I guess the question is - what if anything can WE DO to influence the outcome?

Far from not including such deliberations being inconceivable I would be extremely, and pleasantly, surprised if they were. It took over ten years for the Transport and Works Order to wend its way through the parliamentary process. Even something as basic as providing for fixed penalty notices could take several years. You are also presuming that the EA see themselves as having some sort of responsibility for promoting the river which they, sadly, do not.
Other complications - try charging for swimming or increasing charges for rowing craft - oh oh, don't go there. Small beer income likely and they are sports, mustn't do anything to increase the cost of encouraging healthy activity.
On the other hand Motor Boating is simply a leisure activity so fair game for increasing charges. Danger that higher charges leads to more boats leaving the river which means less income. Not their problem - their job is to manage the river as best they can with the resources available.

But I guess the question is - what if anything can WE DO to influence the outcome?

That is a question that the TMBA and other river organisations are struggling with. My personal belief is that we have to make a major shift to lobbying the politicians rather than the EA and its Thames management.

 

[TrueBlue]

OK,
The EA will like all departments have to model the next five years with these levels of cut. It seems inconceivable to me that they won't include in that modelling a view of what potential new income streams might be available, and what changes would be required to enable those income streams to be realised. It strikes me that changes to legislation etc. would probably be cheaper and much quicker for Government than the transfer to CRT.

But I guess the question is - what if anything can WE DO to influence the outcome?

The transfer to CaRT could be a complete can of worms not the least because it's a completely different ideology - and anyway nobody knows what would be transferred.

We probably can't do much to influence the outcome for reasons B1 has outlined above.
However my plank is that if more fee paying boaters actually used the River in large numbers - instead of just sitting in their marinas, perhaps, just perhaps somebody might take notice when folks started to lobby??

 

[Alan ashore]

You are also presuming that the EA see themselves as having some sort of responsibility for promoting the river which they, sadly, do not.

Well FWIW no I wasn't, but I am (as I always tend to) making a starting assumption that many people at all levels of the organisations involved do actually have both common sense and good intentions. Surely anyone faced with an enormous cut in income will at least scratch his head for more imaginative ways to deal with it than just shutting shop. Equally I'm sure someone has made a pricing sensitivity model for boat registration fees, and will have a view on the maximum income that can be generated that way. But yes I see that perfectly logical ideas may get no further than the waste bin at the brainstorm session, because they will be seen as too hard and difficult in the prevailing organisational and political context.

In practice my gut feel is that EA may decide to lobby for a transfer ASAP to CRT, and will find some support for this in Gov. From boaters' perspective might not an underfunded, rushed transfer, followed by some years of relative chaos, but with the prospect of a more robust operating model emerging at the end, be preferable to a continued attempt to operate under the status quo with ever diminishing means?

As for legislative change, it would be sad if the next major change were wholesale repeal of the TCA and everything else which affords rights of navigation, after the river ceases to be in practice navigable through lack of spend.