Navigation Authority Q&A: Canal & River Trust

The session was arranged so Fund Britain’s Waterways member organisations could put questions directly to the Canal & River Trust about funding, asset management, maintenance, customer satisfaction and future planning.

Les Etheridge opened the meeting by thanking Richard Parry, Chief Executive of the Canal & River Trust, and Susie Mather, Director of Communications and External Relations, for taking part. He explained that FBW welcomed the opportunity for open discussion and that the shared aim was to see the waterways funded at a level that allows them to be properly maintained.

Richard Parry said that the Trust wanted the session to be open and constructive, recognising that everyone present supported the wider objective of securing better funding for the inland waterways.

CRT explained that it uses a mixture of in-house teams and external contractors to deliver maintenance, operational and capital works across the network. It has a professional procurement team and established processes for tendering, contract management and quality control.

Some work is delivered through long-term framework arrangements, including larger contractors and a range of smaller suppliers. Routine works, such as vegetation management, may be delivered in bulk, while other contracts are more project-specific.

For planned works, CRT aims to develop projects carefully and agree fixed-price contracts where possible. However, urgent failures or emergency repairs sometimes require work to begin quickly on a cost-plus basis before moving to a fixed-price arrangement.

Quality control is overseen regionally, with contract supervisors checking that requirements are being met. Where work falls short, contractors can be required to return and put matters right. CRT acknowledged that this is usually more straightforward for routine operational work than for large capital projects, where variations and unforeseen issues can be more complex.

The Trust also recognised concerns that delays and lack of preventative maintenance can increase future repair costs. It said there is constant review of priorities, but that limited funding, emergency failures and statutory reservoir obligations can put pressure on available resources.

CRT said that wellbeing is central to the value of the waterways, covering health, leisure, employment, community benefit, access to nature and wider economic impact.

The Trust explained that its 2018 rebrand was intended to help change public perception, raise awareness and reach new audiences. It believes this has helped unlock support and attract third-party funding, particularly for projects such as towpath improvements.

Questions were raised about signage and whether some public-facing material gave a frivolous impression. CRT responded that signage helped establish awareness of the Trust among the many people who use towpaths but may not know who manages the waterways.

CRT said the costs of branding and public relations are a very small part of its overall expenditure. It also noted that much public awareness work is delivered through digital channels, media coverage and low-cost promotional activity. Looking ahead, it expects fundraising and public engagement to become even more important as government funding reduces.

CRT said it is working to grow income from all possible sources, with a particular focus on charitable fundraising and new income streams.

A Director of Fundraising had recently joined the Trust, and CRT was building a fundraising team with ambitious targets. Existing charitable fundraising was reported at around £5 million per year, with donations from the public, including Friends of the Waterways, contributing around £2 million per year. CRT’s ambition is to grow fundraising significantly over time.

Ideas discussed included contactless giving at visitor sites and events, corporate partnerships, sponsorship, improved supporter benefits, lottery-style fundraising and other models used by large charities. CRT said it is open to ideas that could generate income, although issues such as vandalism, administration costs, gambling regulations and Gift Aid rules must be considered.

The Trust also discussed income from boat licences, moorings, commercial arrangements, water transfer, telecoms and canalside development. It said planned increases in boat licence and related income are expected to make a contribution, but will only be a partial solution to the wider funding gap.

On heritage asset sales, CRT stressed that it cannot sell the core operational network. Sales relate only to non-operational property within its endowment portfolio, and proceeds are reinvested to generate future income rather than used for day-to-day running costs.

CRT said its asset management strategy remains ongoing, although the published version on its website needed refreshing. The Trust indicated that the updated version would be broadly similar in approach, because the strategy did not stop in 2021.

The Trust reported that overall asset condition across the network is largely static, although possibly slightly worse than two or three years earlier due to funding pressures. Before that, asset condition had been improving over a period of years.

Reservoirs are currently a major pressure because statutory safety obligations must be met. Following the Toddbrook Reservoir incident, reservoir safety scrutiny has increased, resulting in higher costs. CRT said these works are non-negotiable and have reduced the funds available for other areas of waterway maintenance.

Dredging expenditure has reduced slightly because, while important, it does not carry the same immediate safety implications as reservoirs and other critical structures. CRT also explained that dredged material can be expensive to dispose of, particularly if it must be removed off site.

The Trust expected reservoir spending to peak at around £25 million per year, representing a large share of infrastructure spending, before reducing by around 2028. However, it cautioned that higher safety standards may keep reservoir costs higher than originally expected.

CRT recognised that lockage figures have declined by around 20% since about 2010, although not all the figures quoted in the submitted question were recognised during the meeting.

The Trust said there may be several factors behind changes in lock movements, including better lock-sharing, more efficient water use, the role of volunteer lock-keepers and a rise in relatively static boats, particularly in the London area.

CRT also noted that the total number of boats on its waterways has continued to grow slowly in recent years, so lower lock movements do not necessarily mean fewer boats overall.

Participants raised concerns that boating activity may be declining and suggested that diesel sales could provide another useful indicator of boat movement, at least until electric boats become more widespread. A request was also made for more statistics on lock closures.

Questions were raised about declining customer satisfaction at a time of rising costs, longer stoppages, delays in repairs, reduced facilities and increasing financial pressure on CRT.

CRT accepted the broad nature of the concerns, although detailed comparative data was not available during the meeting. It said fragile assets, adverse weather, fallen trees, reservoir issues and less resilient water supply in some areas have all contributed to stoppages.

The Trust explained that it reviews similar failures when they occur, looking for patterns and possible preventative action. For example, a series of lock gate heel post failures had prompted further investigation.

CRT emphasised that reservoir safety remains a top priority because failing to comply with safety measures following formal inspections can be a criminal offence. It said it wants to improve engagement with users, explain decisions more clearly and share more underlying information where possible.

The Trust also said it looks to other industries, including rail, for learning and innovation. It believes some data shows the duration of unplanned stoppages for similar works may be reducing, although the frequency of stoppages remains a concern.

CRT said that, as a charity, it must remain politically neutral, but it undertakes a great deal of work with individual politicians, government departments and parliamentary candidates.

The Trust launched a campaign for better funding shortly after Defra’s funding announcement. It has focused on riparian MPs, ministers and prospective parliamentary candidates, highlighting the risks created by inadequate funding and the benefits waterways deliver.

CRT reported that waterway supporters had written to more than 600 MPs during the previous year. The Trust also hosts MP visits where possible and uses impact data to show how waterways contribute to government and opposition priorities, including health and wellbeing, climate resilience, water transfer and local communities.

A key point made to Defra and parliamentarians is that closing waterways does not remove all costs. Oversight, public safety and maintenance liabilities continue even if navigation is reduced or stopped.

The meeting also discussed the need to quantify the wider funding gap more clearly. CRT said the gap arising from the proposed future settlement is too large to be sustainable, potentially rising to around £50 million per year by the mid-2030s.

CRT said there is no mechanism or intention to return the waterways to direct government control.

It also said there are no plans to close waterways. Closure was described as a last resort in extreme circumstances, not something being seriously planned.

The Trust explained that it is trying to be as efficient and innovative as possible and has made savings across a range of budgets over the previous two years. However, it does not believe the funding gap can realistically be filled entirely from other available sources.

CRT said it remains committed to reducing dependency on government grant as a share of total income, but the scale of the funding reduction announced by Defra from 2027 goes beyond what the Trust believes is sustainable. It also highlighted pressures that were not fully envisaged in 2012, including climate change impacts and much greater reservoir safety costs.

Questions were asked about how CRT would decide which waterways might close if funding became impossible, including whether decisions would be based on current use, running costs, repair costs, closure costs, consultation, environmental impact or repayment liabilities linked to past funding.

CRT responded that, because closure is not being planned and would only be a last-resort option, these detailed criteria have not been developed.

The discussion highlighted the importance of clarity for waterway businesses, local communities and restoration groups, all of whom need confidence for long-term decision-making.

Using the Chesterfield Canal as an example, questions were asked about what closure could mean in practice, including whether it might be partial, whether boats would have to move, whether infrastructure would still be monitored and whether towpaths might close.

CRT repeated that closure is the last possible option, so detailed closure scenarios were not being planned. However, it said restoration societies need to understand the seriousness of the current funding position.

The Trust encouraged restoration groups to support the Fund Britain’s Waterways campaign to keep the existing navigable system fully operational. It said restoration groups remain valuable because they promote the benefits of waterways and carry the message into more places.

CRT said it actively supports restoration, but is not currently in a financial position to divert existing funds into restoring waterways or funding the maintenance of newly reopened waterways. It will, however, continue to support restoration in other ways where possible.

Richard Parry thanked Fund Britain’s Waterways steering group members for their questions and for their active support. Les Etheridge also thanked those who had arranged and attended the meeting.

The session concluded with CRT confirming that it would continue to work with user groups and provide supporting information where possible.

The discussion reinforced the shared concern that Britain’s inland waterways need secure and adequate long-term funding, not only for navigation but also for public safety, heritage, biodiversity, communities, health, wellbeing and the wider economy.