It is being reported that the Environment Agency is putting on hold its plan to sell off 10 houses and rent out 12 others. This follows a wave of protests and a petition on the 10 Downing Street website.
After a meeting with Environment Minister Phil Woolas and MPs Martin Salter and Theresa May, the EA has agreed to put the proposals on hold until it has completed "a full review of waterways staff roles and responsibilities, and terms and conditions".
In a statement, EA said that no action will be taken to sell or rent lock houses until negotiations on the full review are completed. It was anticipated that this will take six months but their guarantee would continue until all negotiations are completed or 1st January 2009, whichever is later.
EA also said that any future review of the lock keepers' houses would involve the MPs as well as lock keepers' representatives.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Monday, 19 May 2008
Selling off the silver?
At the end of April, the Environment Agency announced plans to sell off 10 lock keepers' houses and rent out 12 more.
As the reaction to this has been building up, British Waterways has hinted that it may be considering doing something similar. A review just announced will look at ways of getting its historic buildings to make "a greater contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways network". One idea is to transfer property to "specialist associate company part-owned by BW" (to rent out the houses?) while another idea is to sell some of the property top generate money for canal maintenance.
The problem with selling family silver is that once it's gone, it's gone. You can't sell it again. You don't own your heritage any more.
And what will happen once the lock keepers have been moved out and new owners or tenants move in? They may not be canal fans. They may not like the clanking of paddle gear at 6.30 am and demand restricted opening hours. They may not like boats being moored near their pretty cottages.
And what about the waterways staff themselves? Living on site has always had advantages, such as being able to respond quickly to problems.
If BW and EA had properly adequate funding, they would not even need to consider selling their historic property.
You can help the campaign against the sale of Thames lock keepers' houses by asking your MP to sign Early Day Motion 1587.
As the reaction to this has been building up, British Waterways has hinted that it may be considering doing something similar. A review just announced will look at ways of getting its historic buildings to make "a greater contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways network". One idea is to transfer property to "specialist associate company part-owned by BW" (to rent out the houses?) while another idea is to sell some of the property top generate money for canal maintenance.
The problem with selling family silver is that once it's gone, it's gone. You can't sell it again. You don't own your heritage any more.
And what will happen once the lock keepers have been moved out and new owners or tenants move in? They may not be canal fans. They may not like the clanking of paddle gear at 6.30 am and demand restricted opening hours. They may not like boats being moored near their pretty cottages.
And what about the waterways staff themselves? Living on site has always had advantages, such as being able to respond quickly to problems.
If BW and EA had properly adequate funding, they would not even need to consider selling their historic property.
You can help the campaign against the sale of Thames lock keepers' houses by asking your MP to sign Early Day Motion 1587.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
More Volunteers?
British Waterways is planning to increase the number of days worked by volunteers on its network from 5,000 to 10,000 a year. A national volunteering manager has been appointed to help this to happen. The volunteers would assisting with projects such as heritage work, vegetation management and clearance of towpaths. [report]
This sounds like an excellent plan. There must be a good number of people who care enough about their local waterway to give some of their time in this way.
However, the volunteers must not replace paid staff! The work they do should be additional to what can be achieved now. Used imaginatively, voluntary work can enhance the work of BW, but we are still going to need experienced, multi-skilled bank staff who can turn their hands to anything from water management to emergency lock gate repairs.
Overgrown vegetation and crumbling heritage are symptoms of inadequate waterway funding. The ultimate solution is more money! Bring on the volunteers, but bring on better funding, too!
This sounds like an excellent plan. There must be a good number of people who care enough about their local waterway to give some of their time in this way.
However, the volunteers must not replace paid staff! The work they do should be additional to what can be achieved now. Used imaginatively, voluntary work can enhance the work of BW, but we are still going to need experienced, multi-skilled bank staff who can turn their hands to anything from water management to emergency lock gate repairs.
Overgrown vegetation and crumbling heritage are symptoms of inadequate waterway funding. The ultimate solution is more money! Bring on the volunteers, but bring on better funding, too!
Friday, 4 April 2008
Blogging On
It has been necessary to move the "blog" feature across to "Blogger" as the old blog was receiving the attention of spammers! We have copied as many of the entries and comments from the old blog as we could. We hope you find the new version easy to use and look forward to your comments.
We apologise for the technical problems with the Save Our Waterways website over Easter.
We apologise for the technical problems with the Save Our Waterways website over Easter.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year
The IWA has awarded its first title of "Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year" to Charlotte Atkins, MP for Staffordshire Moorlands.Charlotte has secured two adjournment debates on waterway funding, tabled many questions on waterway matters, met with the minister on many occasions and given her time in other ways for the benefit of the waterways.
The award was made at the House of Commons on 1st April at a dinner by Bob Laxton MP and attended by leading waterway figures including the Waterways Minister, Jonathan Shaw MP; the Speaker of the House of Commons, and other distinguished guests.
The twenty MPs present, from all the major parties, had made significant contributions to the well-being of the waterways during the past year, and were contenders for the award.
This most welcome initiative of the IWA's shows appreciation to MPs for their efforts in their key role in helping to fight for improved funding for the waterways.
It is vital that the underfunding of the waterways remains high on MPs' agendas, and it is to be hoped that this event will achieve this. To that end, SOW continues to encourage supporters to write to their MPs, especially with concerns about the effect on their local canals and rivers.
Monday, 17 March 2008
EU Money Floods In
This week came the announcement that the European Commission has approved a payment of £120 million to Britain to cover the costs of floods in England last summer. The money, from the European Union Solidarity Fund, is to cover costs incurred by public bodies in coping with the floods, rather than for insurance claims.
Government ministers have not yet decided how the money will be distributed. It is believed that British Waterways spend around £10 million dealing with the floods, which is money that has had to be diverted away from BW's other spending needs. It seems only right, then, that BW should get its fair share of the cash.
While Treasury ministers are making their minds up, this might be a good time to write to your MP to ask them to ask the ministers whether BW is going to get its share of the EU cash. We know that last year's campaign of contacting MPs had an impact, so questions raised now could help BW to get some if its much-needed money back.
Email your MP now from here: http://www.writetothem.com
Government ministers have not yet decided how the money will be distributed. It is believed that British Waterways spend around £10 million dealing with the floods, which is money that has had to be diverted away from BW's other spending needs. It seems only right, then, that BW should get its fair share of the cash.
While Treasury ministers are making their minds up, this might be a good time to write to your MP to ask them to ask the ministers whether BW is going to get its share of the EU cash. We know that last year's campaign of contacting MPs had an impact, so questions raised now could help BW to get some if its much-needed money back.
Email your MP now from here: http://www.writetothem.com
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Who’s got BW’s money?
There have been big cuts in the funds DEFRA has given BW in the last couple of years, and BW falls behind again this year, as the cash settlement doesn't allow for inflation. So who’s got the money that would otherwise have gone to BW?
DEFRA Minister Jonathan Shaw has given the figures that reveal all in a written answer on the funding of DEFRA's "arm’s length" organisations [see report]. The figures look complicated, but helpfully show the comparable increases or decreases in real terms allowing for inflation.
It would appear from adding up the figures that BW's funding has dropped in real terms by £8.95 million from 2005-6 to 2007-8. Only WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) comes off worse, with a drop of £13.43 million. The figures for Natural England cannot be compared, as the figures for 2006-7 included the setting-up costs which, of course, were not needed again in 2007-8.
So who's got more money? Over the same period (2005-6 to 2007-8) Animal Health got a real terms increase of £15.1 million, the Carbon Trust £26.32 million, the Rural Payments Agency £35.9 million and the EA got a staggering increase of £127.3 million.
The troubles of the Rural Payment Agency are allegedly one of the main reasons for DEFRA's woes. The Carbon Trust helps businesses and public organisations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, a worthy and necessary service, but why should this receive such a big increase at a time when DEFRA claims to be strapped for cash? And why has EA required such a large increase? It makes BW's reduction seem like chicken feed!
A drop in spending power of 8 or 9 million pounds is devastating to a small organisation like BW, but one can't help feeling that it could be absorbed by one of the bigger-spending agencies without anything like the same impact. BW does indeed seem to have been treated unfairly, with the funding axe falling disproportionately on it!
Much of BW's financial shortfall may have been coped with in the short term by cuts in planned maintenance and repairs but this can only lead to bigger bills in future years, repairing failed infrastructure and catching up on the ever-increasing maintenance backlog.
DEFRA Minister Jonathan Shaw has given the figures that reveal all in a written answer on the funding of DEFRA's "arm’s length" organisations [see report]. The figures look complicated, but helpfully show the comparable increases or decreases in real terms allowing for inflation.
It would appear from adding up the figures that BW's funding has dropped in real terms by £8.95 million from 2005-6 to 2007-8. Only WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) comes off worse, with a drop of £13.43 million. The figures for Natural England cannot be compared, as the figures for 2006-7 included the setting-up costs which, of course, were not needed again in 2007-8.
So who's got more money? Over the same period (2005-6 to 2007-8) Animal Health got a real terms increase of £15.1 million, the Carbon Trust £26.32 million, the Rural Payments Agency £35.9 million and the EA got a staggering increase of £127.3 million.
The troubles of the Rural Payment Agency are allegedly one of the main reasons for DEFRA's woes. The Carbon Trust helps businesses and public organisations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, a worthy and necessary service, but why should this receive such a big increase at a time when DEFRA claims to be strapped for cash? And why has EA required such a large increase? It makes BW's reduction seem like chicken feed!
A drop in spending power of 8 or 9 million pounds is devastating to a small organisation like BW, but one can't help feeling that it could be absorbed by one of the bigger-spending agencies without anything like the same impact. BW does indeed seem to have been treated unfairly, with the funding axe falling disproportionately on it!
Much of BW's financial shortfall may have been coped with in the short term by cuts in planned maintenance and repairs but this can only lead to bigger bills in future years, repairing failed infrastructure and catching up on the ever-increasing maintenance backlog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
