Reasonable discussion regarding the sale of lock houses .

Captain Coochie

Captain Coochie

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Apr 2003
Messages
13,583
Location
London
Visit site
Can we have a reasonable discussion between Boaters and the EA regarding this matter please . For the last few weeks all i have seen is rants ( myself included ) and this is no good for anyone .
Lets leave the rants out and discuss facts .
 
No, seriously.... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

A few options have been suggested, but not one EA person has anything to say.
 
I can't see what the diposal of EA assets has to do with river users myself. The EA is ultimatly told what to do by their bosses, DEFRA. If they say sell non essential assets then thats what they have to do. And forget the "I pay my License fee so are funding the EA" argument as the License fee payed by river users is a drop in the weir stream as far as running costs go
 
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see what the diposal of EA assets has to do with river users myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you either don't use a Boat on the Thames, or you are incredibly ignorant of the potential results to River users and Property owners alongside the River.

The general concensus among the seasoned Thames users I have discussed this matter with is in stark contrast to your own view.
 
Well done for suggesting this Chuchilo. If we just keep using words like cretins and lunatics when referring to the EA we are not going to be taken very seriously.

I made a post on this subject which I see has been reproduced in this month's MBM. It was the only one putting the opposite view to the concerns expressed very forcefully on this forum.

I am concerned that the proposed sales may be the thin end of the wedge, but I accept that the EA has to balance its books and change is something we have to live with these days whether we like it or not.

I would love to know more detail about the decision, what the current costs are for maintaining the properties, what savings will be made, what they expect to raise from the sales, how the money will be used etc. I would also like to understand more about the reasoning behind the properties targeted for sale and what provision will be made for the families living in the properties to be sold.

Only with this sort of information can I really make up my mind what I think about the decision and whether there really is a risk to the future of the river as has been suggested. Is any of this in the public domain?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see what the diposal of EA assets has to do with river users myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry? You OK? Not having a senior moment are you mate?
 
You obviously don't read things through. I didn't say that it wouldn't impact on river users or property owners. The way things have been going over the last few days/weeks, or whatever, is the river users think that they have a god given right to have a lockie in a house by the lock or thats the way it reads.

People seem to forget that the EA is a branch of a government agency. Its not ther for the benefit of boat owners river users. It main function is river managment/flood control etc.

Look at history. A few floods were caused by the lockies not not communicating in times of heavy flow and then more of them lived in lockhouses

As far as boating on the Thames goes I think I have a good few years on yourself.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see what the diposal of EA assets has to do with river users myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry? You OK? Not having a senior moment are you mate?

[/ QUOTE ]

..................Probably, but then I've been conversing with Boatone a lot recently.......
 
Right of way to a property does not need to be public . It is a right of way for the home owner . Just because you decided to put a fence up or have a nice lawn is your problem .
Can we please stick to facts /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
I think there may be problems with some of the proposed ideas such as the EA taking out mortgages. I don't think that this can be done by government departments.

What could be done however is a sale and leaseback. The EA could sell the houses and then lease them back from the purchasers. This would raise capital and keep availability for lock keepers. If there are lock houses that are genuinely surplus away from the locks then maybe there is an argument for selling them however it look like there would need to be some arrangement to compensate lock keepers if they need to rent as salaries seem very low.

Overall it looks like a DEFRA-forced capital raising exercise may just be being handled poorly.

Just my £506.52 worth
 
You mention that you want to see the breakdown of costs, how they made the decision and what comes next etc etc

Its all in the 2020 funding vision and appendum document which you can get from Here

Depending on which option of the five they end up going for, and it looks like option 3 to me, you will see many locks with no lockeeper or "assisted service" as they call it. Busy locks and transit locks only will have lockeepers.

Also get the feeling that above Reading will not receive as much attention as below.

But thats my understanding of the document - did I get the wrong end of the stick? (Probably)

Come on Ian/Tony - put me straight, YOU at least still have free speech!
 
I don't find your assessment particularly at odds with my own.

I am a little concerned by Table 3 - Funding Targets on Page 17.

This shows a projected year on year increase in income from craft registration of 10% per annum.
Presumably this can only come from either increased charges for current vessels, an increase in the number of registered vessels or a mixture of the two. Elsewhere it says that after the current 3 year 12%pa round of increases they propose inflation plus 2% so if inflation is 3% that would mean a 5% increase for existing licence holders and a 5% increase presumably due to new craft registrations.

5% increase in existing registration fees I can understand/accept but a 5% increase year on year in new craft registrations seems somewhat optimistic?

Or have I also got the wrong end of the boathook?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also get the feeling that above Reading will not receive as much attention as below

[/ QUOTE ]


Also get the feeling that above Reading will not be buying as many River licences as before either.... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
They also assume a 2% increase in boat numbers somewhere in the document.

Frankly with the plans they are stating, and the already known drop in numbers since the 12% increases, these figures are flawed.

I am very depressed!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am very depressed!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get depressed - you now have the WIndsor forum rally to look forward to.....not to mention the dogs nuts ! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, did you see the target income projections from Defra/NeA/EA? Falling from around £14M today to about £9M in 2020 - thats serious !

I find the section about new marinas quite thought provoking as well. All the boats on the river currently have moorings so new marinbas will need more boats. If these arrive by virtue of increased registrations thats one thing but if boat numbers dont increase more marinas will increase competition and prices may fall. However, investment will be expensive for a rather uncertain return. Lots of "what ifs" to be considered.
 
We have to wait until August for the Dog Nuts (rang vet yesterday), but they will be long gone for the meet in Windsor.

I dont know If I got it wrong again, but it almost reads as is they will drop the standards of service on the Thames and raise those on other navigations to a common standard. I have probably misunderstood but it seems like that?

I also agree on the increases year on year which read like approx 6.5% every year.

I cannot help thinking the numbers of boats will dwindle?
 
Interesting numbers from the 2020 plan document. Formattting is hard on the forum but it is the Thames, then total, then the Thames share of the total.



Thames Total %
Income 3,323,274 4,846,945 69%
Staff 128.6 177.7 72%
Registered craft 25112 31864 79%
Expenditure 11.9 22.6 53%
Funding gap 4.6 12 38%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top