LimL
Well-Known Member
Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
You can read his reply at P M's reply to Lock Cottage Sale
You can read his reply at P M's reply to Lock Cottage Sale
Prime Minister's reply - Lock Keeper's Cottages
- Thread starter LimL
- Start date
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
Always wanted to use the histrionic in a sentence,that petition fits the bill nicely.
Always wanted to use the histrionic in a sentence,that petition fits the bill nicely.
Cliveshep
Well-Known Member
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
Bit of a result then!
Bit of a result then!
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
This was the Email I got as a result of the E-petition:
[ QUOTE ]
Thames-locks2 - epetition response
We received a petition asking:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to prevent the sale or disposal of River Thames lock keepers cottages by the Environment agency.”
Details of Petition:
“The Environment agency have proposed selling off many historic Thames lock keepers cottages as a fund-raising excercise for DEFRA. This is not only an insult to the lock keepers who provide a unique and invaluable service to the River infrastructure, as they were sited to ensure the safety and security of River users and the Lock structures themselves, but also carries serious safety implications which will compromise the safety of River users and buildings in times of flood along the 60 odd mile stretch of the non-tidal Thames, i.e many thousands of acres of residential and commercially used land. This matter has been raised in the House of Commons, and there is currently a six month moritorium during which the properties will not be sold, pending further discussion. The EA have yet to come up with any satisfactory (To any party other than themselves) scheme which will see the Lock keepers reliably located where common sense dictates. The resultant risk to Human life and material loss would be totally unnacceptable under any circumstances.”
· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
Locks and weirs along the River Thames are currently managed by the Environment Agency. Many lock-keepers are provided with houses at or near to the 45 locks, but over a quarter do not currently live in Environment Agency houses.
The Environment Agency has a long term strategy for improving the Thames and increasing the enjoyment of river users. To continue this level of investment without further significant increases in registration fees, the Environment Agency needs to make its operations on the river as efficient as possible, as well as looking for other sources of income. Therefore, it is looking in detail at everything it does to see what can be done more efficiently and more effectively.
One of the service improvements is to increase the number of seasonal staff when they are most needed in the summer and, over time, the number of permanent staff numbers will be reduced, while maintaining the levels of service needed in winter. No one will be made redundant as part of this review.
Some aspects of the management of the River Thames have not been modernised for a long time and, as part of an efficiency review, consideration has been given to whether all 57 lock houses are needed. Each house was assessed individually to decide whether it is required on operational grounds.
As a result, in April 2008, it was proposed that 22 houses could be sold or rented. All 45 locks would continue to be manned on a roster basis as they are now, providing help to boaters and managing water levels, both critical activities as recognised by the petition.
Following consideration by ministers and discussions with staff and river user groups, however, the Environment Agency agreed to put on hold any changes proposed by the lock house review until the completion of a full review of Waterways staff roles and responsibilities, and terms and conditions.
In December 2008, revised proposals for the future of the 57 lock houses were put to staff, unions and MPs. These were:
• We intend to keep the 52 houses we own either on or adjacent to a lock site.
• We wish to retain a resident lock and weir keeper at each of the 45 lock sites.
• We intend to sell a further five houses which are not on or adjacent to a lock site when they become available.
• We intend to move the staff from these houses into the seven other houses we own that are either on or adjacent to a lock site.
We repeated our commitment that no lock-keepers will be made redundant or homeless as a result of this proposal.
The new proposals have been put to unions and staff and in tandem we are also progressing negotiations with staff on terms and conditions.
In the last three years we have invested over £15 million improving the Thames as a waterway. We will continue to support this level of investment and will work with our partners to develop the river by providing:
• More and better facilities such as 24 hour moorings, toilets, showers.
• Better access to the river with more and better slipways.
• More staff on the river to help customers when they most need it.
[/ QUOTE ]
As you say. A result /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
This was the Email I got as a result of the E-petition:
[ QUOTE ]
Thames-locks2 - epetition response
We received a petition asking:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to prevent the sale or disposal of River Thames lock keepers cottages by the Environment agency.”
Details of Petition:
“The Environment agency have proposed selling off many historic Thames lock keepers cottages as a fund-raising excercise for DEFRA. This is not only an insult to the lock keepers who provide a unique and invaluable service to the River infrastructure, as they were sited to ensure the safety and security of River users and the Lock structures themselves, but also carries serious safety implications which will compromise the safety of River users and buildings in times of flood along the 60 odd mile stretch of the non-tidal Thames, i.e many thousands of acres of residential and commercially used land. This matter has been raised in the House of Commons, and there is currently a six month moritorium during which the properties will not be sold, pending further discussion. The EA have yet to come up with any satisfactory (To any party other than themselves) scheme which will see the Lock keepers reliably located where common sense dictates. The resultant risk to Human life and material loss would be totally unnacceptable under any circumstances.”
· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
Locks and weirs along the River Thames are currently managed by the Environment Agency. Many lock-keepers are provided with houses at or near to the 45 locks, but over a quarter do not currently live in Environment Agency houses.
The Environment Agency has a long term strategy for improving the Thames and increasing the enjoyment of river users. To continue this level of investment without further significant increases in registration fees, the Environment Agency needs to make its operations on the river as efficient as possible, as well as looking for other sources of income. Therefore, it is looking in detail at everything it does to see what can be done more efficiently and more effectively.
One of the service improvements is to increase the number of seasonal staff when they are most needed in the summer and, over time, the number of permanent staff numbers will be reduced, while maintaining the levels of service needed in winter. No one will be made redundant as part of this review.
Some aspects of the management of the River Thames have not been modernised for a long time and, as part of an efficiency review, consideration has been given to whether all 57 lock houses are needed. Each house was assessed individually to decide whether it is required on operational grounds.
As a result, in April 2008, it was proposed that 22 houses could be sold or rented. All 45 locks would continue to be manned on a roster basis as they are now, providing help to boaters and managing water levels, both critical activities as recognised by the petition.
Following consideration by ministers and discussions with staff and river user groups, however, the Environment Agency agreed to put on hold any changes proposed by the lock house review until the completion of a full review of Waterways staff roles and responsibilities, and terms and conditions.
In December 2008, revised proposals for the future of the 57 lock houses were put to staff, unions and MPs. These were:
• We intend to keep the 52 houses we own either on or adjacent to a lock site.
• We wish to retain a resident lock and weir keeper at each of the 45 lock sites.
• We intend to sell a further five houses which are not on or adjacent to a lock site when they become available.
• We intend to move the staff from these houses into the seven other houses we own that are either on or adjacent to a lock site.
We repeated our commitment that no lock-keepers will be made redundant or homeless as a result of this proposal.
The new proposals have been put to unions and staff and in tandem we are also progressing negotiations with staff on terms and conditions.
In the last three years we have invested over £15 million improving the Thames as a waterway. We will continue to support this level of investment and will work with our partners to develop the river by providing:
• More and better facilities such as 24 hour moorings, toilets, showers.
• Better access to the river with more and better slipways.
• More staff on the river to help customers when they most need it.
[/ QUOTE ]
As you say. A result /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
apollo
...
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
Ahem...
They are still selling off five houses, one of which is at Boulters - not actually on site but across the road! (Talk about EA splitting hairs!)
Lockie for Boulters operates the Jubilee River and will not live on site any more.
Applaud the rest, really I do (although the rest of the planet knew it was a daft idea in the first place - doh!), but why sell this one off when most would consider it to be one of the most important houses for Flood control?
Ahem...
They are still selling off five houses, one of which is at Boulters - not actually on site but across the road! (Talk about EA splitting hairs!)
Lockie for Boulters operates the Jubilee River and will not live on site any more.
Applaud the rest, really I do (although the rest of the planet knew it was a daft idea in the first place - doh!), but why sell this one off when most would consider it to be one of the most important houses for Flood control?
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
[ QUOTE ]
Ahem...
They are still selling off five houses, one of which is at Boulters - not actually on site but across the road! (Talk about EA splitting hairs!)
Lockie for Boulters operates the Jubilee River and will not live on site any more.
Applaud the rest, really I do (although the rest of the planet knew it was a daft idea in the first place - doh!), but why sell this one off when most would consider it to be one of the most important houses for Flood control?
[/ QUOTE ]
He'll be back when Windsor and Maidenhead next flood because nobody got to the controls in time to spot that they were not working.
[ QUOTE ]
Ahem...
They are still selling off five houses, one of which is at Boulters - not actually on site but across the road! (Talk about EA splitting hairs!)
Lockie for Boulters operates the Jubilee River and will not live on site any more.
Applaud the rest, really I do (although the rest of the planet knew it was a daft idea in the first place - doh!), but why sell this one off when most would consider it to be one of the most important houses for Flood control?
[/ QUOTE ]
He'll be back when Windsor and Maidenhead next flood because nobody got to the controls in time to spot that they were not working.
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
[ QUOTE ]
Ahem...
They are still selling off five houses, one of which is at Boulters - not actually on site but across the road! (Talk about EA splitting hairs!)
Lockie for Boulters operates the Jubilee River and will not live on site any more.
Applaud the rest, really I do (although the rest of the planet knew it was a daft idea in the first place - doh!), but why sell this one off when most would consider it to be one of the most important houses for Flood control?
[/ QUOTE ]
The lockie at Boulters doesn't live on sit as it is condemned for human habitation (it's only used as an office).
He does live over the road, so unless there is a second house for Boulter's, I can't see that his house is not needed for "operational reasons".
Boulter's is an important lock to have staffed to a high level as it is deep and the head sluices can be quite fierce - even on public operation.
The whole operational / non operational decision was a complete fudge (or so it would appear), being based on whether the house was actually on the lock side or not. So Sunbury, Chertsey, Penton Hook, Boulter's (at least) failed this test, because the were on the other side of a road or footpath. The fact that they are within, say, 100 yds or so seems not to have registered with the management...
Disgraceful.
Either put a proper case or risk being condemned by the "customers"
[ QUOTE ]
Ahem...
They are still selling off five houses, one of which is at Boulters - not actually on site but across the road! (Talk about EA splitting hairs!)
Lockie for Boulters operates the Jubilee River and will not live on site any more.
Applaud the rest, really I do (although the rest of the planet knew it was a daft idea in the first place - doh!), but why sell this one off when most would consider it to be one of the most important houses for Flood control?
[/ QUOTE ]
The lockie at Boulters doesn't live on sit as it is condemned for human habitation (it's only used as an office).
He does live over the road, so unless there is a second house for Boulter's, I can't see that his house is not needed for "operational reasons".
Boulter's is an important lock to have staffed to a high level as it is deep and the head sluices can be quite fierce - even on public operation.
The whole operational / non operational decision was a complete fudge (or so it would appear), being based on whether the house was actually on the lock side or not. So Sunbury, Chertsey, Penton Hook, Boulter's (at least) failed this test, because the were on the other side of a road or footpath. The fact that they are within, say, 100 yds or so seems not to have registered with the management...
Disgraceful.
Either put a proper case or risk being condemned by the "customers"
lockkeeper1964
Member
Re: Prime Minister\'s reply - Lock Keeper\'s Cottages
The house near Boulters Lock that is going to be sold is NOT the one across the road that the Boulters Lockkeeper lives in.
The Environment Agency have a relief lockkeepers house about half a mile away in Raymill Road West, this is the one that they plan to sell when the current occupant retires (later this year) /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
The house near Boulters Lock that is going to be sold is NOT the one across the road that the Boulters Lockkeeper lives in.
The Environment Agency have a relief lockkeepers house about half a mile away in Raymill Road West, this is the one that they plan to sell when the current occupant retires (later this year) /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
