Canoe England please take the hint from the WCA.

Inland paddling
Post Reply
LSCCboater
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:01 am
Location: East Mids

Canoe England please take the hint from the WCA.

Post by LSCCboater » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:29 pm

Now that the WCA has removed "service and facility" fees for the use of there centre i.e. CT. A few questions should the BCU or Canoe England enforce a removal of fees for people canoeing and kayaking on HPP which is part of the river trent and also for the Washburn up in Yorkshire. Surely CT and the WCA are leading by setting a very good example for the other centres to follow.

The nene I see as fair game for charging because they have to pay to run the pumps but this centre is very largely run at cost for the paddlers unlike some of the other sites.

With the removal of fees for using CT I see that this could end up being the start of a slippery slope for HPP being used as a target paddling destination. Even being based in the east midlands it is better for me to visit CT for a weekend once a month for example than to visit HPP for a day of paddling every 1 or 2 weeks.

BTW the water extraction/cost agrument will probably not work as has been proved by the river dee example, besides if you do pay for water extraction from the river then it should also be charged for being provided back in because it is not used for anything. Therefore zero cost incured.

Canoe England you are at odds with your other bodies namely the WCA and the SCA. Please do everybody a favour and sort it out.

User avatar
quicky
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Wirral,

Post by quicky » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:08 pm

Now that the WCA has removed "service and facility" fees for the use of there centre I.e. CT
What has they stopped charging for exactly?

I thought was water fees and there would be a parking and showers fee in future?

HPP as has been said before may be a different case as it is a managed artificial course but having it free would be great.... (and some security, but that is another story).

It is always a tricky one to balance where you have pumps like the Nene.

It would be interesting to see everyones constructive thoughts.

User avatar
forestknights
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:59 am
Location: Sussex
Contact:

Post by forestknights » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:47 pm

I have never paddled at HPP but agree that a fee is not unreasonable as it is completely artificial course. hence one reason I have not paddled there.

A reasonable fee for use of the facilities is acceptable to all. It is trying to make a fast buck that most object to.

The construction and running costs of sites like HP need to be funded from somewhere.
Know the wisdom of patience during times of inactivity.

www.forestknights.co.uk

LSCCboater
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:01 am
Location: East Mids

Post by LSCCboater » Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:29 pm

Yes places like HPP and CT do get funding from another source please follow the link below.

http://www.nationalwatersportsevents.co ... tivityId=2

Just to give you an idea the centre often have 4 rafts on and they often have 4 sessions a day during most of the summer. Like other centres it would be fair to assume that they charge more for weekend slots.

To answer the question about carparking and showers there is a very very strong indication that these will not be introduced at CT.

As for initial funding for HPP I believe that this has already been paid for by the general public most likely through the general taxation system either national and or local.

Also to give people an indication of cost £10 for before 6pm and £5 after 6pm + possible visit to GP and prescription + take a significant risk with getting your wheels broken into/kit damaged or stolen that's without the highway robbery that occurs at the pump when you fill up in the first place. This is steeper than CT was when they were charging and it is a lower quality site and service.

User avatar
aleeivel
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:45 pm
Location: Back home in Biggleswade/Work in London :-(

Post by aleeivel » Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:49 pm

HPP has been there for ~20 years so any construction cost (that wasnt covered by grants etc) will have been recovered a longtime ago!!! What are the running costs? Manning the desk where they charge you for access, cleaning changing rooms and not a great deal else!!! Pay and display parking and a charge for changing facilities should more than cover that!!!
Andy Lee
www.thecanoeclub.com

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
-----------
With democracy, it's your vote that counts; with feudalism - it's your Count that votes.....

User avatar
Joe Kirk
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Nottingham

Post by Joe Kirk » Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:07 pm

Not that I'm condoning the fee, but a lot of maintenance goes on at HPP. Also about the comment of crime, you get that anywhere, I know of a few people that have had cars damaged or broken into in Wales. Also, I used to live in Notts and visited HPP every week for about 4 years once I got into kayaking, and never had my car touched.
"I was much too far out all my life
And not waving but drowning." - Stevie Smith

paddletastic2
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Coventry
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

BCU

Post by paddletastic2 » Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:39 pm

Canoe England or the BCU do not own or manage HPP. I believe that either the local authority or Sport England own the site.

It has been discussed on this site before.

David

User avatar
gonzo
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:44 pm

Post by gonzo » Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:53 pm

I believe HPP recently lost its funding from SportUK (??) and was adopted by Nottingham Council?? They have control of the site and not the BCU/CE.

The only link the BCU had with HPP was that's where their offices used to be located!

User avatar
aleeivel
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:45 pm
Location: Back home in Biggleswade/Work in London :-(

Post by aleeivel » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:20 am

So it is a local govt run facility that has very little in the way of running costs and local government are supposed to be encouraging sport and active pursuits both for general health and also to give the little darlings something to do other than stab each other!!!!
Andy Lee
www.thecanoeclub.com

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
-----------
With democracy, it's your vote that counts; with feudalism - it's your Count that votes.....

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by Adrian Cooper » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:53 am

''It was paid for a long time ago so it should be free''

What nonsense!

Ever heard of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirment, something like 40% of GDP.

You cannot establish what part of revenue has been used to repay capital cost, which to pay running costs and which has been put into general revenue to subsidise taxation. If a public asset is capable of generating funds by providing a valuable service, then why shouldn't it. It used to be the case that smaller capital projects were paid for in the first year out of current budgets although larger projects would have to receive tresury finance to spread the load. Local authorities would generally have to find the money in year one, if that was the case then all LA projects would have been paid for and would not need to charge.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 5809
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Sheffield

Post by TheKrikkitWars » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:02 am

HPP should not be free.

Washburn should be free, in fact I did a double take when my dad payed the fiver (we assumed it was a parking fee) only to be asked "What about the other two people, they haven't paid"
ONE BLADE, ONE LOVE, [TOO] MANY PIES


Joshua Kelly

User avatar
davebrads
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:42 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by davebrads » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:42 am

I agree that Washburn should be free, it would be if it were in France.

The problem is that the Water people charge the earth for the releases, and the BCU who organise the paddling need to recover that money from the users, so we have to pay. You should maybe lobby your local MP to get the situation changed.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 5809
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Sheffield

Post by TheKrikkitWars » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:53 am

davebrads wrote:I agree that Washburn should be free, it would be if it were in France.

The problem is that the Water people charge the earth for the releases, and the BCU who organise the paddling need to recover that money from the users, so we have to pay. You should maybe lobby your local MP to get the situation changed.
I think that the clubs ought to consider other income streams, as £5 per car, and running a cafe can pull in more revenue than £5 per paddler.

(I have helped the people organising of some washburn events, so I know the score there.)
ONE BLADE, ONE LOVE, [TOO] MANY PIES


Joshua Kelly

User avatar
Martyn Hartley
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:19 pm
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Post by Martyn Hartley » Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:44 pm

I don't agree that the Washburn should be free. It is run by paddlers for paddlers. Most of the money goes to Yorkshire water to pay for the releases. The rest is in general running costs - toilets, info line etc. Any profits go back into developing the site. There are no commercial interests here - and little or no rafting. The site is not really used by walkers or other sports.

So if paddlers didn't pay, it wouldn't happen.

Of course the charges have to be modest - but I think they are. The organisers have always been fair with me - if you turn up late in the day, they will usually "negotiate" a reduced fee. I have even paid a nominal fee to paddle on Slalom days, provided we stayed off the course during the events.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 5809
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Sheffield

Post by TheKrikkitWars » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:57 pm

Like I said, Cafe Income+Parking Fee>Access Fee.
ONE BLADE, ONE LOVE, [TOO] MANY PIES


Joshua Kelly

User avatar
Martyn Hartley
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:19 pm
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Post by Martyn Hartley » Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:30 pm

But that is simply making more work, for more people!

You go there to paddle, not to park and eat bacon butties! So the costs should be shared between the paddlers.

Some events have had a catering tent in the past. I see nothing wrong with that, if it helps to keep the cost down, or to raise further money. However the fact remains, that the site is specifically a paddling venue, so it makes perfect sense to charge per paddler to cover the costs.

You wouldn't expect a cinema to show free films, but to charge for parking and food would you?

User avatar
MattBibbings
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Otley, West Yorkshire

Post by MattBibbings » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:59 am

Martyn Hartley wrote:
So if paddlers didn't pay, it wouldn't happen.
Errr, yes it would. All that water has to be released down the Wasburn Valley at some point. If we could just Phone the water people and ask politly when then it would be very easy. Just like the Clewedog.

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by morsey » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:40 am

What would you do if the BCU/CE turned round and said:

"The BCU/CE no longer has any association with the WCA and does not condone the WCA's current policy on river access."

User avatar
Rick Foster
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:02 am

Post by Rick Foster » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:44 am

I would say fine, you have never done anything for me anyway!

User avatar
David Fairweather
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:04 pm
Location: Villars-sur-Ollons, Switzerland
Contact:

Post by David Fairweather » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:47 am

morsey wrote:What would you do if the BCU/CE turned round and said:

"The BCU/CE no longer has any association with the WCA and does not condone the WCA's current policy on river access."
I would at least applaud their honesty. As far as I can tell, this pretty much sums up the current level of support for the WCA's policy on river access.

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by morsey » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:48 am

BalaB Maybe slightly more aimed at those based in England!

Stuartr
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: Newcastle
Contact:

Maintenance

Post by Stuartr » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:46 pm

Its great hearing about the tryweryn being free. I also think it would be even better if all the man made courses were free.

But at the end of the day, their made of concrete and they will need maintenance so they opperate safely for all to use. A good example of this would be the tees barrage who are taking on a project thats worth 3.2 million to make it better and more fun for us to train and play. some of the money for this has come from sponsors but also allot of it is from the people who use the course.

Im sure HPP and the nene (Speculation) might also be considering similar projects in the future to up their game a bit more, if this is the case im still all for paying a fee. If the courses go to wreck and ruin its obviously unfair to charge for unsafe / crap facilities.

Does anybody know if the washburn generates electricity when it releases ? if so i think the fee for the release is slightly unfair ! If its completley for us on the other hand the fee is quite acceptable.

ChrisMac
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:05 pm

Post by ChrisMac » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:50 pm

Whilst it would be nice if the course at HPP was free I think it is unlikely. For starters it is owned by the Council now that sport england have decided that london and 2012 is all that matters. It is managed, not very well mind, by a private company who set the charges and are only interested in profit.

User avatar
janet brown
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:15 am
Location: Pulborough, West Sussex

Nene

Post by janet brown » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Access on the Nene is now so limited due to rafting activities as to be worthless to paddlers. We are told that we are being subsidised by the rafting side of the business, so I very much doubt that it would ever be free (prices have just gone up!). I was under the impression that the Nene got a grant from the BCU: not sure about this though, or what it actually goes towards.

A coach in our club has tried to run several trips in the last few year, with little success.
One time we all arrived after a 3 hour drive, to find that the session had been changed from afternoon to morning, so we'd just missed it!
We are very careful to phone now, though it would be nice if the website was used to provide accurate information like at CT.
Next time the course was not available at short notice due to a private booking, so the trip was cancelled, and paddlers disappointed.
Last weekend the pumps were out of action: not the Nene's fault admittedly, but still disappointed paddlers. At least we were able to reinstate our normal club session, although at only a days notice, so it was rather quiet!

Janet

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”