Beryl
regular
Reged: 21/12/2006
Posts: 49
Loc: South Stoke
|
|
You might be interested to know that the EA are trying to sell or rent houses to which there is no public right of way across the land.
|
Cuchilo
regular
Reged: 19/04/2003
Posts: 4457
Loc: London
|
|
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 
--------------------
Dont come running to me if you fall over and break your leg .
|
JECuk
regular
Reged: 22/01/2008
Posts: 249
Loc: Mid-Thames
|
|
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
--------------------
Lady Gay
Edited by JECuk (15/05/2008 23:33)
|
apollo
regular
Reged: 12/09/2003
Posts: 1061
Loc: Thames
|
|
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!
|
boatone
regular
Reged: 29/07/2001
Posts: 6652
Loc: Surrey uk
|
|
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?
--------------------
"Don't tell me why not, tell me how..."
Photo Gallery, Burgees and MADonTheThames
|
No_Regrets
regular
Reged: 09/07/2007
Posts: 1235
Loc: Welwyn Garden City, Herts UK.
|
|
Quote:
Also get the feeling that above Reading will not receive as much attention as below
Also get the feeling that above Reading will not be buying as many River licences as before either.... 
--------------------
Birchwood Owners Association (BOA) forum now open here -> http://birchwoodboats.aceboard.com/
|
apollo
regular
Reged: 12/09/2003
Posts: 1061
Loc: Thames
|
|
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!
|
boatone
regular
Reged: 29/07/2001
Posts: 6652
Loc: Surrey uk
|
|
Quote:
I am very depressed!
Don't get depressed - you now have the WIndsor forum rally to look forward to.....not to mention the dogs nuts ! 
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.
--------------------
"Don't tell me why not, tell me how..."
Photo Gallery, Burgees and MADonTheThames
|
apollo
regular
Reged: 12/09/2003
Posts: 1061
Loc: Thames
|
|
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?
|
JECuk
regular
Reged: 22/01/2008
Posts: 249
Loc: Mid-Thames
|
|
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%
--------------------
Lady Gay
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
