FOURTH REPORT
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:-
INLAND WATERWAYS
INTRODUCTION
1. The inland waterways of the UK are a unique, and until very recently undervalued, resource. They were a vital part of industrial revolution, but following the development of the rail network, their industrial role waned. Dramatic changes in the economic structure of the UK and in the location of industry mean that they are unlikely to play such a significant role again. Nevertheless, inland waterways are now increasingly important in other roles: urban regeneration, leisure and as a sanctuary for wildlife. "There is enormous affection amongst the British public for the waterways".[3] They are an important public asset which can be used and enjoyed by all.
2. The Government published Waterways for Tomorrow in June 2000 as a 'daughter document' to its Integrated Transport White Paper. This was the first policy document issued by a Government on the subject for many years. It seeks to "promote the inland waterways, encouraging a modern, integrated and sustainable approach to their use".[4] The document sets out the Government's view that the myriad uses of the waterways are complementary and it is possible to accommodate them all.
3. Following the publication of Waterways for Tomorrow, the Committee resolved to hold an inquiry to determine whether its objectives were appropriate and whether the structures in place were adequate to achieve a balance of uses. We called for evidence addressing the following issues:
- the role of inland waterways in respect of: urban and rural regeneration; leisure, recreation, tourism and the industrial heritage; the environment and the enhancement of wildlife; and water transfer, drainage and telecommunications;
- whether the potential for increasing commercial freight transport can be clearly identified; and the role of commercial freight in meeting the objectives of the Government's Integrated Transport White Paper;
- the extent to which the above objectives are complementary, and whether a principal use should be given priority;
- whether the Waterways for Tomorrow policy document contains adequate policies and mechanisms to ensure its goals are achieved, and, in particular, whether funding for the stabilisation and development of inland waterways, including revenue from licensing and regeneration and other monies, is adequate;
- the structure of ownership of waterways and the roles and responsibilities of those agencies involved in their protection and maintenance, and any conflicts of interest; and
- other matters which may arise in the course of questioning.
4. In response, we received 77 memoranda and took oral evidence from 15 organisations over three sessions. We appointed John Hume and Professor James McConville as specialist advisers and are grateful for their advice and assistance. In our Report, we consider the main roles of the waterways (freight, regeneration, environment and leisure) and look at the need to reform the current organisational structure and planning and legislative frameworks.
5. There are over 5,000 kilometres of fully navigable inland waterways in England and Wales.[5] These are managed by many navigation authorities, the largest being British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority. A key issue for the inquiry was that the waterways fulfil many purposes. They are of considerable general amenity value and can be an important focus for urban regeneration, a haven for wildlife and a means for transporting freight. We were concerned that this wide range of uses should be reflected in the aims and activities of the organisations responsible for the waterways.
6. Our inquiry examined issues relating to both tidal and non-tidal rivers and canals. We did not examine short sea shipping in any great detail, but recognise that the two modes are closely linked with many ships using both the inland waterways system and coastal and deep sea zones.[6] Following the recent publication of the Ports White Paper we are currently examining these issues in the Transport Sub-committee.
THE ROLE OF THE INLAND WATERWAYS
Freight
7. Freight carried on the inland waterways has been in relative decline for many years and now accounts for less than 1 per cent of all freight moved domestically in Great Britain.[7] Only 0.2 billion tonne-kilometres of freight were moved via inland waterways in Great Britain during 1998, compared with a figure of 64.3 for Germany.[8] This can be explained by the fact that the UK canal system, unlike its European counterparts, comprises mainly 'narrow gauge' canals. While important resources for leisure, recreation and as an environmental asset, these are unable to accommodate the larger craft required to transport modern freight cargo. Instead, freight is now largely a matter for major rivers and the larger canals, such as the Manchester Ship Canal and the Aire And Calder Navigation.
8. While there is little likelihood of an expansion of freight on the narrow canals, there are significant opportunities to increase freight on the larger waterways. The freight operators, in particular, were relatively bullish about the potential.[9] For example, Mr Lowe of Humber Barges told us that "without trying at all, our company has identified half a million tonnes per annum that we think we could lift from road onto water. As an example, our local waterway, the Aire & Calder Navigation, could quite easily take 2,000 lorries a day off the adjacent roads, which include the M62".[10] The Commercial Boat Owners Association was similarly upbeat about prospects for the industry: "there is a busy future ahead for us as more and more large companies take an interest in the benefits of water transport ... the government needs to take a leap of faith and actively encourage industry back to the waterside".[11] British Waterways was also relatively optimistic, telling us that it should be possible to more than double the amount of freight carried on the inland waterways in five years, through moving more waste, recyclable materials, aggregates and construction materials by water.[12]
9. It should be said that other witnesses were more cautious, arguing that only a marginal shift was possible.[13] However, even if the waterways' contribution to overall freight carriage is marginal, the effects on a local environment may be significant.[14] For example, we heard that the debris produced by the construction of a new marina at Newark was being removed by water, saving 30 lorry movements to and from the site every day.[15] The Royal Town Planning Institute also illustrated the local benefits, by referring to the transfer of grain from Seaforth to Old Trafford via the Manchester Ship Canal, which was saving 5,000 extra lorry trips between Merseyside and Greater Manchester.[16]
10. In addition to local advantages, there are far reaching environmental benefits. Water transport is relatively energy efficient and is therefore more sustainable than road haulage.[17] Mr Worsford of the University of Westminster told us that " ships are an extremely energy efficient means of transporting goods, far outstripping both air and road transport in the relation between energy consumption and the volume of freight carried".[18]
11. There is a strong case for attracting more freight onto the inland waterways, and the potential to do so. However, there are also considerable barriers. Probably the most fundamental hurdle is that most producers and consumers do not even consider transporting freight by inland waterways as a possible option. They prefer to receive 'just in time' deliveries by road.[19] Most industrial developments are now located in close proximity to the road network, with little consideration being given to the possibilities of utilising the inland waterways for deliveries. Witnesses expressed their frustration that many such opportunities were being missed and cited the example of the recent construction of a glass plant at Eggborough, Yorkshire, only 1.5 miles away from an operational canal (the Aire and Calder Navigation),[20] and gravel extraction activities being granted planning permission on sites adjacent to the River Severn, yet transporting all materials by road.[21] Given the increasing congestion on the roads and the aims of the Government's Integrated Transport Strategy, it would seem logical to locate appropriate industry next to alternative, more environmentally friendly forms of transport.[22] In addition, there are locations and industries where water transport would be a particularly suitable option. Witnesses put forward a number of practical suggestions to encourage this. For example, the Commercial Boat Operators Association suggested that planning consents for the extraction of waterside aggregates should be conditional on the operator's use of water transport.[23]
12. There are also physical constraints. The most significant, we were told, was the loss of wharves, terminals and associated infrastructure, often as a result of the development of waterside sites.[24] Developments in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and other cities have demonstrated the value of canals in kick-starting the regeneration of town and city centres. However, the freight operators told us that this trend could jeopardise their industry. Lafarge Redland Aggregates made the point strongly: "a culture has grown up, and is overtly encouraged by Waterways for Tomorrow, of redeveloping waterside sites for residential and business uses ... this is natural and is a reasonable policy where waterside freight use is inessential but is to be deplored where continued or increased freight use is in the public interest".[25] The Inland Waterways Association agreed, pointing out that "too much emphasis on regeneration could reduce longer-term potential of the waterways for transport".[26]
13. Other difficulties are less fundamental, but nevertheless represent a severe constraint on freight operations. Some locks and swing/lift bridges are not yet fully automated. Humber Barges told us that this meant that 24 hour access to some waterways was not possible. Further automation was needed, we were told, to facilitate the flow of traffic and to enable the waterways to be open for the passage of freight craft around the clock.[27] This would make water transport more competitive. Another difficulty we heard about was a lack of modern craft and trained crews.[28] As a result of the shortage of craft, "operators are even looking to the continent ... to find suitable vessels".[29]
14. Silting up causes other problems. Dr Rowlinson of London Guildhall University criticised British Waterways for neglecting the River Weaver, an off-shoot of the Manchester Ship Canal, and allowing it to silt up to the extent it could no longer accommodate large freight vessels. Dr Rowlinson told us that "the inability of coastal and shortsea vessels to load to their capacity in the Weaver not only forces up shipping costs but also leads to at least 15,000 extra road journeys on the restricted road system of Mid-Cheshire".[30] While these allegations were rejected by British Waterways,[31] Dr Rowlinson, in supplementary evidence, maintained that there was a problem, telling us that "it is evident that the deterioration in water levels in the River Weaver prevents vessels loading to their full capacity".[32] Again this makes waterborne transport a less attractive option: ships' inability to load to full capacity on the River Weaver would make any competitive advantage over road trunk haulage, marginal.[33] The Anglian Regional Flood Defence Committee told us that "dredging should be considered to facilitate the increase in waterborne freight on tidal rivers".[34] More use could be made of dredging in appropriate circumstances, but there are pitfalls and dredging should only be undertaken to 'designed depths'.
15. Finally, a number of financial constraints need to be addressed. In particular, witnesses told us about the issue of tolls charged for freight craft. Leisure craft are no longer charged tolls, on the British Waterways network at least, and instead pay a licence fee, generally on an annual basis. Freight craft, on the other hand, are generally charged per tonne and these tolls are typically twice that charged for access to the UK rail system.[35] Mr Lowe of Humber Barges described this as "an archaic system of charging".[36] The current arrangement creates two main problems. First, the existence of tolls makes the waterways even more uncompetitive compared to road and rail.[37] Secondly, it represents an administrative burden for freight companies. Mr Lowe illustrated this: "if somebody comes to us with, say, 200 tonnes of steel from A to B, we have to ring up somebody in British Waterways, negotiate a toll; that person has to refer to somebody else; they may be on holiday and cannot get back to us for three weeks and so on ... It is ridiculous that, for example, at the moment, if we want to go up the Aire Calder Navigation on a Sunday, we have to give notice by the Friday. What road haulier would have to do that?"[38] The burden falls particularly heavily on those companies operating across a number of navigation authorities. Dr Hilling of the European River Sea Transport Union (ERSTU) told us that "there are cases where barges move from one waterway to another and would be subject to two quite separate lots of tolls". [39]
16. The most obvious solution would be to abolish tolls and replace them with an annual licence fee. This route was recommended by a number of witnesses.[40] At the same time, Rolandon Securities told us that: "as the navigation authorities are commercial enterprises ... they will need incentives to provide and improve the waterway track and facilities".[41] This could be achieved under a reformed Freight Facilities Grant,[42] which we discuss below.
17. Above and beyond the administrative difficulties caused by tolls, there will be a continuing need to subsidise and support freight operations, if the Government is to achieve its objective to "encourage the transfer of freight from roads to water-borne transport where this is practical, economic and environmentally desirable".[43] There is, without doubt, considerable potential to do so on selected inland waterways, but the difficulties are such that a switch will not be achieved unless the Government is prepared to offer more encouragement and investment. At present, it does this through Freight Facilities Grants which are available towards the capital cost of rail and waterways freight equipment in cases where the traffic would otherwise have gone by road. While take-up has been poor in previous years, the number of grants has increased, from one in 1983 to nine in 1999. Monies granted in 1999-2000 amounted to £37.4m, of which 36 per cent went to waterways projects.[44] Witnesses reported that the grants provided "valuable help in increasing waterborne freight",[45] and in some cases had had significant local impacts in reducing lorry journeys,[46] although we also received some criticisms of the scheme.[47] Improvements have been proposed in Waterways for Tomorrow to extend the scheme to coastal and short sea shipping; to allow the payment of grant for non-capital as well as capital costs; and to allow grant to be paid to shipping companies, ports, consignors, consignees and navigation authorities (rather than only operators as is currently the case).[48] These proposals should be implemented at an early date. In particular, we recommend that Freight Facilities Grants be extended to assist navigation authorities in providing and improving the waterway 'track' and associated facilities, and to offer financial support to freight operators in modernising their fleets. We further recommend:
- a) the abolition of tolls for freight craft and their replacement with an annual licence fee (with different tariffs for regular users and occasional users);
b) that the planning system should promote the use of appropriate waterside sites by industry to encourage supplies and products to be transported by water;
c) that development plans recognise wharves and associated infrastructure as strategic assets and provide greater protection against development of such sites for alternative uses, and that where such sites are lost to development, the authority should oblige the developer to provide equivalent wharf facilities elsewhere; and
d) that a one stop shop inquiry service for freight operators be established to address their concerns about lack of co-ordination between navigation authorities and provide immediate access to practical information including waterway closures, depths, flood or drought conditions. Such a service could be run by the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA).
18. We recognise that these proposals would remove more freight from the roads and would be perceived as another threat to the road haulage industry. However, reducing lorry trips has significant environmental benefits, including a reduction in congestion and energy consumption, and for this reason we support a transfer of freight to water.
Urban regeneration
19. The transformation of some major cities in recent years has been impressive. In many city centres the waterways have played a pivotal role, providing a focal point for the attraction of residential, leisure and commercial uses to hitherto derelict buildings and wasteland.[49] John Nicholls of the East Midlands Regional Development Agency told us "water can provide a key, uplifting ingredient in physical regeneration projects".[50] Imaginative use is being made of a previously neglected resource: we were told that canals had been "liabilities waiting to be turned into assets".[51]
20. Waterways linked regeneration projects have resulted in a range of benefits for the towns and cities concerned. Birmingham city centre is perhaps the best known example of a derelict waterfront being transformed into a thriving area offering residential, commercial, industrial and leisure opportunities. Life has been attracted back into the city centre and this has been instrumental in securing "a greatly improved image of both the City and the canals themselves".[52] In addition, the Council estimated that more than 9,000 jobs have been generated by its most well known scheme, Brindleyplace.[53] Newark and Sherwood District Council told us that regeneration along the River Trent had resulted in many benefits, including the restoration and reuse of significant historic buildings, including, for example, the listed Kiln Warehouse, and the creation of "general commercial confidence" in a previously run down area.[54] The opportunity has also been taken to improve many aspects of the public realm, with the creation of two new parks and a new riverside walk.
21. Development of waterside sites for residential use has also proved to be effective in attracting people to live in previously abandoned city centres.[55] Councillor Stacey of Birmingham City Council told us that the city had become "one of these doughnut towns, where no-one lived in the middle and came in to work".[56] However, once the initially sceptical developers had been persuaded to include housing in their plans, "they were absolutely stunned by the response of the market".[57] The canal basin in Birmingham city centre is now a desirable, sought after, residential location. Housing has also been an important part of new developments in Newark where there is an integrated mixture of private sector and social housing provision.[58]
22. An important element of regeneration initiatives has been the reuse of heritage buildings. Many industrial buildings and warehouses were built alongside the canals in the 19th century, but a large proportion fell into disuse following the decline in canal use. Fortunately, efforts to regenerate the waterways have recognised the potential of these important buildings, and have included them in their plans, often developing imaginative proposals for their reuse.[59] This, in our view, is one of the most valuable by-products of the regeneration of city centre waterways. It is all the more important in the context of Government policy to recycle brownfield sites and existing buildings, and to curb building on greenfield land.
23. However, despite many successes, problems still exist in securing regeneration. Witnesses told us about a number of barriers such as fragmented land ownership, bad neighbour uses and difficulty in securing the involvement of the private sector.[60] Moreover, there can be negative consequences attached to regeneration projects alongside waterways. In particular, we were told about the consequences for freight and other industrial activity along inland waterways and effects on public access.
24. We have already discussed, at paragraph 12 above, the consequences for the freight industry of the loss of wharves and other infrastructure. A more insidious effect may be a gradual exclusion of the public from rivers and canals. Thamesbank, a community-led organisation promoting sustainable regeneration, told us about its experience along the Thames. There, the group argued, too many riverside sites have been granted planning permission for expensive private housing by local authorities "under pressure to support developments that increase council tax income".[61] This was having adverse effects on industry and restricting public access to the river. Thamesbank told us about "the removal of steps and public slipways along the river" and cited several examples where access to the River Thames was restricted or discouraged by landowners.[62] These effects-the loss of freight sites and restrictions to access-are problems not confined to the River Thames, and all waterways can be affected in this way.[63] It is imperative that efforts to regenerate the waterways continue, but partners must be careful to minimise the loss of wharfage, industry and public access. We recommend that local authorities safeguard and promote public access to the waterfront in new developments. We consider how enhanced protection can be achieved through the planning system at paragraphs 17 and 60-63.
25. We also have some aesthetic concerns. The Government claims that "waterway improvements foster good design".[64] And the Royal Town Planning Institute told us that regeneration has been "further enhanced by the presence of redundant waterside buildings of some character ... which have been available for conversion into new homes or offices or other uses".[65] While there are certainly examples of good practice and there have been improvements in recent years, the design of some riverside developments has been poor and inappropriate for their location.[66] We recommend that historic buildings by waterways should be carefully conserved and substantial alteration of exteriors avoided if these buildings are to play their full role in regeneration. British Waterways and other owners of such properties should liaise formally with English Heritage and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on good practice. The good practice guide being prepared by the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should address this issue. We also commend the development of historic buildings by the waterside as a particularly appropriate vehicle for lottery funding.
26. British Waterways is a key player in urban regeneration along waterways and has achieved significant successes in this area. It works in partnership with local authorities, regional development agencies, private developers and others[67]and has been involved with some 25 major projects over the last 12 years. We heard that it was "a strong, willing partner"[68] in the regeneration of the River Trent at Newark. However, despite many successes, we received evidence of some difficulties, produced in large part by the organisation's statutory and financial framework, which impeded its effectiveness as a partner in urban regeneration schemes.
27. British Waterways was created by the Transport Act 1962, but its statutory remit was radically restructured and set out in the Transport Act 1968. Subsequent private Acts[69] made minor alterations. The legislation established a classification of the waterways into commercial, leisure and 'remainder' waterways. A problem arises with respect to the latter, where British Waterways can legally only spend money to make them safe and to protect amenity. Birmingham City Council and other witnesses told us they were frustrated by these limitations. In Birmingham, where most of the waterways are classified as 'remainder,' the City Council told us that British Waterways was constrained in supporting the maintenance of public realm elements of canals such as tow paths.[70] The Inland Waterways Association also claimed that the current provisions were "absurd and entirely inappropriate" and argued that "they provide a mix of unsuited regulation and red tape that only serves to impede proper modern day operation and development".[71] While in practice, British Waterways is often able to 'get round' restrictions on its activities,[72] there is a need to reform the legislation. We deal with this at paragraph 64.
28. Urban and rural regeneration should be one of British Waterways' top priorities. Not only should the organisation have greater flexibility to undertake improvements along all waterways, but it should actively be encouraged by legislation to do so. We therefore recommend that the Government introduce a duty on British Waterways to facilitate urban regeneration.
29. We now turn to British Waterways' financial framework. One of the key contributions British Waterways brings to urban regeneration is a substantial property portfolio, which was inherited from the British Transport Commission in 1962. Today its non-operational assets alone are worth over £247.7 million.[73] In addition, it owns many important ransom strips.[74] The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) requires British Waterways to maximise the development potential and prospective public sector returns from canalside opportunities. British Waterways' current Financial Memorandum came into effect in June 2000 and requires that all proposed projects must be appraised in line with Treasury guidance".[75] This guidance[76] requires property to be disposed of at "the best possible overall return" and specifies that the required rate of return is per cent,[77] although this may be varied, depending on the type of project.[78] We were informed by British Waterways that it exercised flexibility in the interpretation of this guidance and that it was now policy to "accept much lower returns when it came to heritage [projects]".[79] However, we were concerned about criticisms levelled at British Waterways in connection with projects in Sowerby Bridge and Wakefield. Here the organisation was criticised by Regeneration through Heritage and others for an overly commercial approach to heritage-led projects and a failure to work properly in partnership with tenants and the respective local authorities.[80] British Waterways rejected these allegations, claiming that it had concerns regarding the viability of the Wakefield proposals and pointing out that it has an excellent track record in establishing and maintaining partnerships to deliver sustainable development.[81] We visited both sites[82] and while we do not wish to pronounce on individual cases, we are worried that British Waterways at times interprets its brief in a narrowly commercial way and that the flexibility it claims as a policy has not been put into practice in all cases. We therefore recommend that British Waterways exercise more discretion in applying Treasury Guidelines to its project appraisals and that it formally adopt a policy whereby specified rates of return are applied more flexibly to heritage and other projects in the public good.
30. There is clearly, also, a role for the Government. We accept Lord Whitty's point that "for public accountability and other reasons we need to have an indicative rate of return on the commercial operation of every public body".[83] However, it is Government policy that "the maximisation of receipts should not be the overriding objective in heritage disposals."[84] The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has produced guidance, The Disposal of Historic Buildings, to implement this policy which advises that "the most appropriate long-term use for a historic building ... may not be the use which generates the optimum financial return".[85] Unfortunately, this policy position does not have appeared to have filtered down to British Waterways, and particularly not to local staff, and we were surprised that the organisation's Financial Memorandum makes no mention of the DCMS guidance. This is all the more incongruous given how many buildings in British Waterways' ownership are of historic value. We consider it important that Government policy in respect of historic buildings is not sidelined and therefore recommend that British Waterways' Financial Memorandum be revised, in consultation with HM Treasury, to include a reference to the DCMS guidance as well as Treasury guidelines. In addition, the Government needs to make it clearer that " per cent is an indicative return".[86] We therefore recommend that the Treasury communicate to British Waterways and other bodies that the standard rate of return of per cent does not have to be achieved by those projects where other significant wider public benefits, including the conservation of heritage buildings, will accrue.
31. Another constraint on British Waterways' activities is the set of rules relating to borrowing. Section 1 of the Transport Act 1962 makes provision for British Waterways to borrow finance, from the National Loans Fund. However, in practice British Waterways is discouraged from doing so by the Treasury. The organisation is not allowed to borrow money on commercial markets and, as a result, funds its investments through the proceeds of sales of assets. Dr Fletcher, the chief executive of British Waterways, told us that "we have constraints under public sector borrowing and it is not possible for us to borrow money to buy that canal company. Therefore the Waterways Trust, being a non-public body, can do so, have done so, and they have then sub-contracted the repair and maintenance of the waterways to British Waterways".[87] We recommend that British Waterways be allowed to raise capital on the commercial markets to finance acquisitions and developments with a medium to long term probability of reducing annual revenue funding through DETR. Such borrowing should be subject to Ministerial approval for loans above a designated threshold, as is the case for borrowing by the Post Office.
Environment
32. The inland waterways are an important environmental and ecological resource, performing a number of functions, ranging from encouraging biodiversity to land drainage. In built-up urban areas, they can be particularly valuable, providing a sanctuary for many species, some rare and protected, and access to an area of greenspace and the natural environment for city dwellers. The rich flora and fauna are of educational, recreational and amenity value and contribute significantly, for example, to the enjoyment of canal walkers. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds told us that:
- "navigable rivers, canals and the land that adjoins them are especially rich habitats for wildlife. They can be green corridors bringing wildlife into towns and intensively managed agricultural areas and linking fragmented habitats ... With the continuing threat to wetland habitats from agriculture and urbanisation, inland waterways are becoming an increasingly important wildlife resource".[88]
33. However, the system is "ultimately fragile and irreplaceable"[89] and there is a real danger that nature conservation aims are compromised by the many other activities accommodated on the waterways. Witnesses told us that great care would have to be taken to ensure that the proposals contained in Waterways for Tomorrow would not put the environment and wildlife at risk.[90]
34. The inappropriate use of boats and canal restoration programmes were of particular concern. Boat wash and the creation of turbidity, marinas and water pollution can damage wildlife in a whole host of ways.[91] Witnesses were worried about the potential conflict between nature conservation and restoration projects. English Nature wrote that even designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which represent only 1 per cent of the national network, had been damaged by canal restoration activity.[92] This is all the more worrying since, as English Nature told us, there are 76 canal restoration schemes potentially in the pipeline.[93] The Government's view is that it is possible to accommodate all uses on the waterways, and that it is down to the navigation authorities to achieve a sustainable balance.[94] The DETR wrote that "it is important to ensure that nature conservation and navigation interests are reconciled, especially when disused waterways are being restored"[95] and this was widely accepted. It is clear that the value of the waterways very much relies on a high quality environment.[96]
35. The maintenance of high environmental standards and the promotion of nature conservation in and along waterways must be an important priority. We recommend that nature conservation priorities should be formally designed into restoration projects at an early stage. British Waterways and the Environment Agency have developed new techniques for bank protection which avoid hard edges, and encourage biodiversity: these should be applied both to canal restoration works and to sections of canal inappropriately treated in the past. These approaches should be agreed with English Nature, and where possible applied on independent navigations. We also recommend that the granting of lottery and other funding for canal restoration schemes should be conditional on adequate safeguards being built in at project planning stage to protect and enhance biodiversity.
36. As mentioned above, the Government puts considerable faith in the ability of the navigation authorities to resolve conflicts between competing uses of the waterways. However, we heard that the performance of navigation authorities in respect of environmental standards was very variable. The National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives told us that "navigation authorities are not as sensitive to environmental issues as they should be".[97] This, we were told, is a particular problem with those waterways managed by smaller navigation authorities. British Waterways is required by the Government to operate and maintain waterways to high environmental and maintenance standards,[98] and the Environment Agency and Broads Authority have similar statutory obligations. These three authorities have published minimum environmental standards and, according to the Wildlife Trusts, have made "enormous strides recently".[99] However, the statutory duties and minimum environmental standards do not apply to the 30 or so smaller navigation authorities.[100] This is a potentially serious problem since these authorities manage around a quarter of all waterways.[101] The Wildlife Trusts argued that "all the other authorities need in some way bringing into line" and called for a single set of minimum environmental standards to be established.[102] This is, of course, not a situation which has arisen as a result of mindful neglect on the part of the smaller authorities. As Mr Holroyde of the Upper Avon Navigation Trust told us, many of these organisations operate on a shoestring budget, and are run by volunteers. He wrote:
- "Many small navigations ... only exist because they were restored, or preserved, by dedicated enthusiasts, sometimes with little support, or even hostility, from local and national bodies".[103]
37. Notwithstanding this, it is essential that greater consistency is introduced and we therefore recommend that all navigation authorities, co-ordinated by the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, sign up to minimum environmental standards. These should be agreed to and monitored by English Nature. We recognise that additional costs will be involved in such a move and recommend that the Government make grant in aid available to the smaller navigation authorities to implement improved environmental standards.
38. The waterways also provide opportunities for water transfer, but the evidence we received was divided on its merits. Some witnesses considered it offered opportunities.[104] However the environmental groups, and even Water UK, which represents the water industry,[105] were more cautious.[106] The Wildlife Trusts and the Friends of Tring Reservoir, for example, were concerned about the spread of alien invasive species, parasites and disease, and the resulting risks for the character of inland waterways and for habitats and wildlife.[107] We heard that the Government, through Partnerships UK, has lent its support to the concept of establishing a national watergrid.[108] We were disturbed that these plans were not mentioned in the evidence given by British Waterways nor Lord Whitty shortly before their announcement, and have some concerns about this venture being embraced without proper regard to its environmental consequences. We therefore recommend that any projects to encourage water transfer should be carefully monitored to ensure that they do not have adverse impacts on the environment.
Leisure
BOATING
39. Only a relatively small part of the inland waterways system is used for freight. Leisure boating is far more popular. According to the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management, over two million boats are owned privately and a third of all leisure cruising is on inland waterways.[109] Apart from providing recreational opportunities, leisure boating can also have significant economic benefits. The Institute told us that boaters "generate a large amount of additional spend using local chandlers, pubs and restaurants and marine facilities for fuel and maintenance".[110]
40. This group appears to receive very good value from the waterways system. Leisure activities contribute only 15 per cent of British Waterways' revenue[111] (through craft and angling licences, moorings, etc), but that sector arguably derives the most direct benefit from the organisation's activities. The National Association of Fisheries & Angling Consultatives told us that most of the £64.5 million funding allocated to British Waterways and the Environment Agency for navigation activities is "required to maintain the waterways in a fully navigable condition, but receipts from the chief beneficiaries-boat users-amount only to about £12 million".[112]
41. We considered whether British Waterways funding needed to be adjusted so that leisure users contributed more to the upkeep of the system. We put this point to a number of witnesses, who argued strongly that in fact the money spent on the waterways benefited a far wider group than just those involved in formal leisure pursuits on the waterways. They also made the point that it would be difficult to charge all of those who benefit. The Inland Waterways Association told us:
- "you could not conceivably put turnstiles on the towing path. You could not very easily charge all those who benefit from regeneration through city centres and rural areas of the waterways ... Only a minuscule proportion of that number, the boaters and the anglers, pay for the direct privilege. All the rest of the people pay for it through their taxes. The proportions of people who pay directly and those who benefit indirectly are so far outweighing that there is a very good argument for more money going in from central resources. It should not just be seen as lost money; it is very much an investment to regenerate city centres and rural areas."[113]
This was also the view of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (IWAAC) which argued that money invested in waterway restoration is "money well spent"[114] and that "it would be difficult for leisure boating users to pay a higher percentage of the costs of running the waterways because they are an ageing population, as we see it, and the costs are going up".[115] We agree that it is not feasible to substantially increase the contribution from boaters and other leisure users.
42. Furthermore we were told that "the presence of boats bring waterways alive"[116] and is one of the main reasons waterside sites are attractive for residential and office use. Mr Dean told us "the movement of craft keeps [waterways] alive, especially on the canals where otherwise the water becomes stagnant and clogged with weed and/or litter. Frequent use and the presence of boaters offer free supervision and cuts down vandalism".[117]
43. Witnesses were concerned that the numbers involved in boating were reducing and the population was ageing.[118] Several suggested that boating was now the preserve of middle aged, middle class people, and that it had become increasingly difficult for the less well off to participate.[119] The hobby is expensive when capital costs, the licence fee and the cost of moorings are taken into account.[120] The Royal Yachting Association argued that "new ways should be found of encouraging the participation of a broader age range".[121]
44. Another issue raised in the evidence was boat safety. The boat safety scheme was introduced through private legislation in 1995[122] and in 1997 became a mandatory requirement for those craft wishing to traverse waterways run by British Waterways and the Environment Agency. While the majority of boat owners have complied with the legislation, the scheme has been contentious and has met with a degree of resistance. Some witnesses criticised the cost implications of the scheme, saying it was "onerous, in financial terms"[123] and blamed it for "driving people off the water".[124] The scheme is currently under review by an independent working party. We welcome its interim conclusions and recommendations.[125]
OTHER LEISURE ACTIVITIES
45. Leisure boating appears to be the present raison d'être of the canal system. However, while highly visible, the leisure boaters represent only a tiny fraction of the people who use the waterways for recreational purposes. Other activities include walking, cycling, bird-watching, angling and canoeing. Large numbers undertake informal activities-in particular walking on tow-paths-along the waterways. These pursuits have a number of advantages. First, "quiet enjoyment"[126] of the waterways does not pose any threat to habitats and their biodiversity. Secondly, the waterways are important as green lungs, particularly within urban areas, providing access to the countryside and car-free routes to work and school. We consider the issue of walking in cities to be of great importance and will be reporting on it later. Thirdly, such activities are accessible to all, and can be important in alleviating the effects of social exclusion.[127] We heard about a number of programmes offering opportunities for disadvantaged groups including ethnic minorities, special needs groups and ex-offenders, for example, to enjoy the waterways.[128] Such programmes can have a significant effect on the quality of life.
46. Angling, we were told, is a very popular sport,[129] which, since entry costs are relatively low, also has the benefit of being accessible to a wide cross-section of society. However, the navigation authorities were criticised for not welcoming anglers and for failing to manage conflicts of use on the waterways.[130] For example, some expressed concern about the removal of the close season for coarse fishing on non-SSSI canals.[131] Canoeing is another 'quiet' activity which is generally accepted by environmental organisations as compatible with protecting biodiversity, and is a sport that can be "practised by all regardless of age, sex, race or ability".[132] We received several submissions from canoeing organisations.[133] We are sympathetic to their concerns, but many of the points they made were relevant mainly to non-navigable rivers, which have not been a focus for this inquiry.
47. There is a fairly high 'minimum' level of maintenance required to keep the waterways in working order; and we were told about the backlog of investment which both British Waterways and the Environment Agency was trying to catch up on.[134] These needs should not be neglected. However, it is important that the requirements of all users be taken into account. The waterways, as public assets, should be for everyone. British Waterways makes substantial sums from the management of its portfolio, a major public asset. It must therefore ensure that its expenditure properly serves the interests of the wider community, particularly in the context of a shrinking boating population. We therefore recommend that British Waterways continue with its work of upgrading the canal system for the benefit of boaters, but that it needs to ensure that more is spent on projects which benefit a wider community including improvements to: tow-paths; access points to tow-paths and the waterways; and, where appropriate, cycleways.
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
48. The inland waterways in Britain are owned and managed, largely for historic reasons, by a confusingly large number of individuals and organisations. We received a substantial amount of evidence on the structure of navigation authorities. The DETR explained the current arrangements:
- "About half (2,615 km) of the navigable inland waterways system is managed by British Waterways, and a further quarter by the Environment Agency (875 km) or the Broads Authority (160 km). The remainder is the responsibility of about 30 other navigation authorities drawn from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Some navigation authorities are also harbour authorities".[135]
49. Witnesses told us that this rather untidy and fragmented system caused various problems. Specifically, two main difficulties arose. First, we were told, there were simply too many navigation authorities. The Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council told us that "the need to deal with a multiplicity of authorities on regulatory matters such as licensing ... causes confusion and frustration for users".[136] Apart from a lack of consistency in both environmental and maintenance standards (referred to in paragraphs 36-37 above), the structure resulted, we were told, in bureaucratic and administrative problems, it was not economic and was impeding the system's future development.[137] Mr Lowe of Humber Barges told us that "some heads need knocking together".[138] Secondly, no mechanism exists to resolve conflicts. As mentioned above in paragraphs 34 and 36, the Government puts its faith in the individual navigation authorities to secure a balance of use on the waterways. However, many witnesses claimed that this was not working and called for an over-arching structure to ensure that the interests of all users across the waterways were taken into account. They also called for a more co-ordinated management structure for the waterways of England and Wales.
50. Witnesses were particularly concerned about the division of responsibility between the two largest navigation authorities, British Waterways and the Environment Agency. Broadly speaking, the Environment Agency has navigational responsibility for rivers and British Waterways owns and is responsible for canals and part-canalised rivers.[139] DETR summed up their respective roles as follows:
- "British Waterways is concerned solely with its waterways. It runs its affairs on a commercial basis consistent with its statutory responsibilities for navigation. It is expected to promote the use of its waterways for leisure and recreation, tourism, regeneration, and transport while also conserving their built and natural heritage.
The Environment Agency is primarily an environmental regulatory body which manages its waterways as an integral part of its other water management functions. It has a duty generally to promote the recreational use of waterways and an obligation to operate those for which it is responsible in an efficient and business-like manner".[140]
The issue of the appropriate division of responsibility between the two organisations has been live for some time. Neither agency seemed to want to give up its navigation responsibilities.[141] In evidence, British Waterways made an overt bid to take over responsibility for all waterways, arguing that "fragmentation ... has been a disincentive to the realisation of the full potential of the inland waterways".[142] The Environment Agency strongly defended its role, and put forward a number of arguments to support its case. We look in turn at the relative merits of the two main options: the status quo and transferring the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities to British Waterways.
51. Two key arguments were put forward in support of the Environment Agency. The Agency's main line of defence was an environmental one. It, and other witnesses, argued that a unique approach to the management of rivers was essential since they were more fragile and complex environments than canals.[143] Its integrated approach to managing the water bodies in its care takes into consideration all uses and their impact and is called 'integrated river basin management'.[144] This technique, the argument goes, could not readily be assumed by British Waterways. Dr Mance of the Environment Agency told us that such an approach was particularly important for those rivers which were intensively used, such as the Thames. He argued that removing one activity-navigation-from the chain of command would introduce operational difficulties, and would be especially risky at critical times on fast-reacting rivers.[145] During such episodes, the Environment Agency told us "the presence of two bodies has the potential to affect the speed with which responses can be put in place and also requires river users to deal with an additional party for river navigation and recreation advice".[146] The second argument put forward was a financial one. The Environment Agency argued very strongly that economies of scale were achieved by combining the navigation and flood defence roles in a single body. In short, staff undertake flood control duties in the winter and manage rivers for navigation purposes in the summer. The Agency argued that this was cost effective: "costs can be shared where staff work on flood defence in the winter and as lock-keepers in the summer. On rivers where the Agency does not manage navigation directly, these efficiencies do not apply".[147] The Kent Local Flood Defence Committee illustrated the budgetary benefits of the arrangement: "navigation staff are part of the Agency's Emergency Work Force which is the minimum number of retained employees needed to respond in the first twenty four hours of a one in ten year flood event (known as the Noble number)".[148]
52. On the other hand, British Waterways told us "we believe in order to maximise the potential benefits identified in Waterways for Tomorrow, it would be advantageous to transfer the navigation responsibilities of the Environment Agency to British Waterways".[149] Its key argument is that the Environment Agency's dual role with respect to rivers is problematic and that its "proper remit" is as a powerful regulator.[150] A number of witnesses raised concerns about a conflict of interest, as explained by the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs:
- "this Association remains concerned that there is a fundamental dichotomy in the role of the Environment Agency. It is environmental protection agency on the one hand and promoter of leisure and tourism on the other ... The presence of this dichotomy within the Environment Agency will continue to throw up conflicting aims".[151]
However, no one was able to offer specific instances of where this alleged conflict arose, or created problems.
53. Secondly, British Waterways argued that it could do the job as well as, or better than, the Environment Agency.[152] Specifically, it claimed that it has more than enough experience in river basin management and in flood control[153] and would be able to take on the navigation role for the rivers currently with the Environment Agency. Finally, the organisation suggested that a number of benefits would accrue from such a move, and told us that "we could advance what is implied by the Government White Paper, Waterways for Tomorrow, at quite a pace".[154] This is an ambitious claim. However, we are not sure what British Waterways would, or indeed should, do very much differently if it were put in charge of the navigation of the Environment Agency's rivers, particularly since it would not own much land alongside rivers. Much of what has been achieved over the last ten years or so, certainly in regeneration terms, British Waterways has done so by utilising canalside sites and buildings in its ownership.
54. We considered very seriously whether the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities should be transferred to British Waterways. We note the arguments in favour of such a move but at the same time are impressed by the tremendous efforts which Environment Agency staff have made in respect of recent flooding. In addition, we received very little practical evidence to suggest that there were significant problems with the way in which the Environment Agency executed its navigation responsibilities. Equally, we received no evidence to suggest that where British Waterways manages rivers, problems arose, and we are not wholly convinced of the argument that the organisation would struggle with integrated river basin management. Those staff at British Waterways with responsibility for managing navigations such as the Ouse and Severn have considerable expertise in river-basin management for flood control as well as for navigation.
55. A number of witnesses complained that this issue had been under almost continuous review since the late 1980s,[155] and that this had created an environment of uncertainty for the Environment Agency and had diverted staff from the task in hand. Further upheaval is, in our view, undesirable. Moreover, we looked at the Collaboration Agreement, which was put in place in June 2000 to improve co-ordination of the two agencies' work, and heard that this is considered to be working well.[156] We agree with Lord Whitty that "we ought to give time for that [the collaboration agreement] to work".[157] We therefore recommend that navigation responsibility for waterways should remain as it is and that the Government should, in the latest quinquennial review of the Environment Agency, make it clear that this arrangement will stand for some years to come. It is essential that Environment Agency staff are now ensured of a degree of stability.
56. Nevertheless there are real problems which can arise from the confusing structure. There is a clear need for a more co-ordinated management of the waterways of England and Wales.[158] We considered witnesses' calls for the establishment of an 'over-arching authority' and recommend that a more formalised joint management arrangement should be put in place. Some witnesses thought that an existing body, such as IWAAC or AINA should take on such a role.[159] However, we are not convinced that this would be an appropriate way forward: the former organisation's value is in providing strategic advice and the latter's is as a voluntary trade association. It would be difficult, in their current form, for either organisation to effect practical changes on the waterways. Instead, we looked at the joint boards which have worked well for some local authority responsibilities, such as policing, water supply and transport, and consider they provide a useful model. We therefore recommend that a joint board be established composed of the three Government-funded waterways systems (British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority) together with representation from the minor navigation authorities. The board should be advised by a reformed Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and should have the following objectives:
- a) to make the waterways easier to use, and, specifically, to promote waterborne freight;
b) to ensure that both the natural and built environments are conserved and enhanced;
c) to agree and promote higher and more consistent standards in respect of maintenance and environmental quality throughout the waterways; and
d) to provide a forum for identifying areas of common interest and for the strategic resolution of conflicts of use.
Its overall purpose should be to introduce harmonisation across the system, rather than standardisation.
57. While the board's remit could develop with time, we have, earlier in this report, identified a number of pressing issues. Its most immediate tasks should therefore be as follows:
- to address the issue of charging for freight use of waterways and to investigate the introduction of a system for licensing freight craft;
- to agree and oversee standards of maintenance and environmental care among the smaller navigation authorities; and
- to implement the recommendations of the Boat Safety Scheme Review Team.
58. We suggest that the membership of the joint board should comprise one executive and one non-executive member from each of British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority, together with two members of AINA's management committee who represent smaller navigation authorities. In addition, two or three nominees representing other interests, for example, users, should be nominated by the DETR, whose officials should also attend board meetings as observers. Chairmanship should be independent. The board may wish to form standing committees to perform short term reviews. Such a board could operate without significant increases in funding. However, the need for effective communication and transparency may make some limited additional administrative costs necessary.
59. The successful operation of the board would depend on DETR, as sponsoring department of the key authorities, making it clear to the major participants that they would be expected to make a success of it. It would also be dependent on no one navigation authority dominating its affairs. We suggest establishing the joint board, in the first instance, for a five year period, at which point its effectiveness would be reviewed. In addition, the board should report annually to its members and to ministers, with copies of the report to go to user groups, local authorities and other relevant agencies.
PLANNING AND LEGISLATION
The planning system
60. The role of the planning system is of vital importance to the waterways. Problems have arisen in the past because for many years the waterways were a forgotten resource. Buildings turned their backs on them and as a result planning departments did not regard them as an asset. We were told of a myriad ways in which the planning system could be improved to make better use of the waterways, and to safeguard them from inappropriate development. For example, it could promote waterborne freight through encouraging the location of industry towards sites with water access and through increased protection for operational wharves.[160]
61. Some witnesses argued that there was a need for a dedicated Planning Policy Guidance note covering waterways.[161] The government's statutory advisor on waterways, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, called for this,[162] although the Royal Town Planning Institute disagreed.[163] We are not convinced that a separate guidance note is required. Appendix 3 of the Government's Waterways for Tomorrow document provides a useful summary of each existing PPG note which is relevant to the waterways. In addition, the Department has commissioned IWAAC to prepare a good practice guide on this subject highlighting examples of good planning where waterways are involved. Instead, we recommend that waterways be taken into account in revisions of existing PPGs, particularly in relation to PPG13 and PPG17.
62. In addition, more could be achieved through Regional Planning Guidance.[164] The difficulties we referred to above-loss of wharfage and the squeezing out of waterside industry and public access-arise partly because of the linear nature of waterways. Loss of access to rivers or canals may occur because they flow through several local authority areas, with no single body responsible for planning issues along their length. Similarly, a lack of integrated planning can be responsible for unco-ordinated decisions about industrial waterside sites. There is no point, for example, in one authority promoting a site for freight, if sites at the route's destination, in another local authority area, have been disposed of for housing. Witnesses told us about cases where a freight site located in one authority had been lost, thus jeopardising freight activity along the whole waterway. In order to avoid this, development plans need to recognise the strategic nature of the waterways.[165] This could be achieved, according to the Environment Agency and other witnesses by strengthening PPG11,[166] which provides regional planning bodies with advice on the preparation, scope and content of Regional Planning Guidance.[167] However, the current PPG11 already establishes a framework, requiring Regional Planning Guidance to "provide a strategic steer on the role and future development of railways, airports, ports and inland waterways in the region".[168] In addition, since it was published only last year, a revision in the near future seems unlikely. The onus must therefore be on regional planning bodies: we recommend that they take more account of the linear and interconnected nature of the waterways in the production of Regional Planning Guidance. In practice, this would mean better strategic planning, avoiding the problems created in past by, for example, by road building and unco-ordinated planning consents.[169] The potential of inland waterways should also be taken into account by the Regional Development Agencies in preparing their Regional Strategies. Furthermore, local authorities should be using their Local Transport Plans to actively encourage freight transport onto appropriate inland waterways, and to use canal tow-paths to form part of walking routes.
63. A further problem is the threat posed to the disused waterways with potential for restoration by "ill considered"[170] road building schemes. We were very concerned to hear about the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals whose restoration has been jeopardised by the planned Birmingham Northern Relief Road. The bridges which form part of this road scheme have been designed so as to make future navigation of that waterway impossible.[171] Concerns about the restoration of waterways being handicapped in this way have been raised in the past by a number of commentators, including the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, which called for a revision in planning guidance.[172] The need for action now appears to have been accepted by the Government. In its policy document, Waterways for Tomorrow, the Government states it wants "to see new road and other development proposals take proper account of waterway restoration"[173] and accordingly has promised to "issue guidance on new road proposals which affect restoration projects".[174] This will be done through a revised PPG13, and through guidance to the Highways Agency on bridge and road design. We are concerned that a draft of PPG13 was published in October 1999 and a finalised version has still to be issued. This guidance must be issued at the earliest date, to ensure that any disused waterways can be fully restored. However, witnesses, including Lord Whitty, told us that this commitment had come too late to save the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals from the Birmingham Northern Relief Road.[175] This sadly represents a failure to properly join up Government policies and we are very disappointed that the Government appears to be "locked into that contract".[176] One witness, the British Marine Industries Federation, argued that it is still possible for the Government to "take retrospective action to influence the builders of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road to incorporate crossings at the design stage".[177] We therefore urge the Government to look again at this case and make every effort to require the developer to make alterations to the design of crossings, so as to safeguard the future of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals.
Legislation
64. We set out in paragraph 27 above the relevant legislation governing the waterways. Several witnesses questioned whether the existing framework served needs of society and called for updated legislation.[178] For example, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council told us that:
- "British Waterways' management has worked with Government to perform miracles in getting round its restraints but we do not believe that this can continue for another thirty years. The waterways need to be equipped with a pro-active set of powers to promote long term conservation and to develop leisure, waterside businesses and property for the benefit of everyone".[179]
We agree that a revision of legislation is required and recommend that the Government introduce a Waterways Bill[180] which would:
- abolish obsolete classifications of waterways;
- transfer responsibility for the maintenance of public road bridges to local or national highway authorities and other provisions to protect waterways from road projects;
- revise the duties (to extend them to cover non-British Waterways waterways and to represent freight interests) and funding of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (so it is funded direct from DETR, rather than via British Waterways as is now the case);
- clarify the definition of canals and river navigations to include associated infrastructure;
- consolidate the British Waterways Private Acts;
- introduce powers for British Waterways to construct new waterways, enlarge existing ones, to develop waterside property and to restore abandoned waterways; and
- introduce the aforementioned duty for British Waterways to facilitate urban regeneration; and to promote access to and enjoyment of the waterways for all.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
- There is considerable potential to increase freight carried on selected inland waterways, but the difficulties are such that a switch will not be achieved unless the Government is prepared to offer more encouragement and investment (paragraph 17).
- We recommend that Freight Facilities Grants be extended to assist navigation authorities in providing and improving the waterway 'track' and associated facilities, and to offer financial support to freight operators in modernising their fleets. We further recommend:
a) the abolition of tolls for freight craft and their replacement with an annual licence fee (with different tariffs for regular users and occasional users);
b) that the planning system should promote the use of appropriate waterside sites by industry to encourage supplies and products to be transported by water;
c) that development plans recognise wharves and associated infrastructure as strategic assets and provide greater protection against development of such sites for alternative uses, and that where such sites are lost to development, the authority should oblige the developer to provide equivalent wharf facilities elsewhere; and
d) that a one stop shop inquiry service for freight operators be established to address their concerns about lack of co-ordination between navigation authorities and provide immediate access to practical information including waterway closures, depths, flood or drought conditions. Such a service could be run by the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (paragraph 17).
- We recommend that local authorities safeguard and promote public access to the waterfront in new developments (paragraph 24).
- We recommend that historic buildings by waterways should be carefully conserved and substantial alteration of exteriors avoided if these buildings are to play their full role in regeneration. British Waterways and other owners of such properties should liaise formally with English Heritage and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on good practice. The good practice guide being prepared by the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should address this issue. We also commend the development of historic buildings by the waterside as a particularly appropriate vehicle for lottery funding (paragraph 25).
- Urban and rural regeneration should be one of British Waterways' top priorities. Not only should the organisation have greater flexibility to undertake improvements along all waterways, but it should actively be encouraged by legislation to do so. We therefore recommend that the Government introduce a duty on British Waterways to facilitate urban regeneration (paragraph 28).
- We recommend that British Waterways exercise more discretion in applying Treasury Guidelines to its project appraisals and that it formally adopt a policy whereby specified rates of return are applied more flexibly to heritage and other projects in the public good (paragraph 29).
- We consider it important that Government policy in respect of historic buildings is not sidelined and therefore recommend that British Waterways' Financial Memorandum be revised, in consultation with HM Treasury, to include a reference to the DCMS guidance as well as Treasury guidelines (paragraph 30).
- We recommend that the Treasury communicate to British Waterways and other bodies that the standard rate of return of per cent does not have to be achieved by those projects where other significant wider public benefits, including the conservation of heritage buildings, will accrue (paragraph 30).
- We recommend that British Waterways be allowed to raise capital on the commercial markets to finance acquisitions and developments with a medium to long term probability of reducing annual revenue funding through DETR. Such borrowing should be subject to Ministerial approval for loans above a designated threshold, as is the case for borrowing by the Post Office (paragraph 31).
- The maintenance of high environmental standards and the promotion of nature conservation in and along waterways must be an important priority. We recommend that nature conservation priorities should be formally designed into restoration projects at an early stage. British Waterways and the Environment Agency have developed new techniques for bank protection which avoid hard edges, and encourage biodiversity: these should be applied both to canal restoration works and to sections of canal inappropriately treated in the past. These approaches should be agreed with English Nature, and where possible applied on independent navigations. We also recommend that the granting of lottery and other funding for canal restoration schemes should be conditional on adequate safeguards being built in at project planning stage to protect and enhance biodiversity (paragraph 35).
- We recommend that all navigation authorities, co-ordinated by the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, sign up to minimum environmental standards. These should be agreed to and monitored by English Nature. We recognise that additional costs will be involved in such a move and recommend that the Government make grant in aid available to the smaller navigation authorities to implement improved environmental standards (paragraph 37).
- We recommend that any projects to encourage water transfer should be carefully monitored to ensure that they do not have adverse impacts on the environment (paragraph 38).
- We agree that it is not feasible to substantially increase the contribution from boaters and other leisure users (paragraph 41).
- The Boat Safety Scheme is currently under review by an independent working party. We welcome its interim conclusions and recommendations (paragraph 44).
- We recommend that British Waterways continue with its work of upgrading the canal system for the benefit of boaters, but that it needs to ensure that more is spent on projects which benefit a wider community including improvements to: tow-paths; access points to tow-paths and the waterways; and, where appropriate, cycleways (paragraph 47).
- We therefore recommend that navigation responsibility for waterways should remain as it is and that the Government should, in the latest quinquennial review of the Environment Agency, make it clear that this arrangement will stand for some years to come. It is essential that Environment Agency staff are now ensured of a degree of stability (paragraph 55).
- We recommend that a more formalised joint management arrangement for the waterways should be put in place. A joint board should be established composed of the three Government-funded waterways systems (British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority) together with representation from the minor navigation authorities. The board should be advised by a reformed Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and should have the following objectives:
a) to make the waterways easier to use, and, specifically, to promote waterborne freight;
b) to ensure that both the natural and built environments are conserved and enhanced;
c) to agree and promote higher and more consistent standards in respect of maintenance and environmental quality throughout the waterways; and
d) to provide a forum for identifying areas of common interest and for the strategic resolution of conflicts of use.
Its overall purpose should be to introduce harmonisation across the system, rather than standardisation (paragraph 56).
- While the board's remit could develop with time, we have, earlier in this report, identified a number of pressing issues. Its most immediate tasks should therefore be as follows:
- to address the issue of charging for freight use of waterways and to investigate the introduction of a system for licensing freight craft;
- to agree and oversee standards of maintenance and environmental care among the smaller navigation authorities; and
- to implement the recommendations of the Boat Safety Scheme Review Team (paragraph 57).
- We are not convinced that a separate planning policy guidance note for the waterways is required. Appendix 3 of the Government's Waterways for Tomorrow document provides a useful summary of each existing PPG note which is relevant to the waterways. Instead we recommend that waterways be taken into account in revisions of existing PPGs, particularly in relation to PPG13 and PPG17 (paragraph 61).
- We recommend that Regional Planning Bodies take more account of the linear and interconnected nature of the waterways in the production of Regional Planning Guidance. The potential of inland waterways should also be taken into account by the Regional Development Agencies in preparing their Regional Strategies. Furthermore, local authorities should be using their Local Transport Plans to actively encourage freight transport onto appropriate inland waterways, and to use canal tow-paths to form part of walking routes (paragraph 62).
- We are concerned that a draft of PPG13 was published in October 199 and a finalised version has still to be issued. Guidance on new road proposals which affect restoration projects must be issued at the earliest date, to ensure that any disused waterways can be fully restored. We urge the Government to look again at the case of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road and make every effort to require the developer to make alterations to the design of crossings, so as to safeguard the future of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals (paragraph 63).
- We agree that a revision of legislation is required and recommend that the Government introduce a Waterways Bill which would:
- abolish obsolete classifications of waterways;
- transfer responsibility for the maintenance of public road bridges to local or national highway authorities and other provisions to protect waterways from road projects;
- revise the duties (to extend them to cover non-British Waterways waterways and to represent freight interests) and funding of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (so it is funded direct from DETR, rather than via British Waterways as is now the case);
- clarify the definition of canals and river navigations to include associated infrastructure;
- consolidate the British Waterways Private Acts;
- introduce powers for British Waterways to construct new waterways, enlarge existing ones, to develop waterside property and to restore abandoned waterways; and
- introduce the aforementioned duty for British Waterways to facilitate urban regeneration; and to promote access to and enjoyment of the waterways for all (paragraph 64).
3 IW53 Back
4 DETR, June 2000, Waterways for Tomorrow, p6 Back
5 DETR, June 2000, Waterways for Tomorrow, p12 Back
6 IW45 Back
7 IW04, IW57, para 22 Back
8 DETR, October 2000, Transport Statistics Great Britain 2000, p167 Back
9 IW10, IW11, IW13, IW63 Back
10 Q2 Back
11 IW63 Back
12 Q386 and see IW10 Back
13 IW16, IW23, IW66, Q465 Back
14 IW10, IW70 Back
15 IW74 Back
16 IW70, para 22 Back
17 IW04 and see IW19 Back
18 IW04, IW10 Back
19 IW04, see also IW10 Back
20 IW59, para 3.12 Back
21 IW19 Back
22 Mr McNamara of the Southampton Institute argued that local authorities should, in general, aim to direct the location of new industry towards sites with water access (IW60) Back
23 IW63 Back
24 Q470, IW13, para 10, IW29, IW32, IW69, IW63 Back
25 IW13, para 10 Back
26 IW29, see also IW69, IW63 Back
27 IW07 Back
28 IW63, IW69 Back
29 IW36 Back
30 IW20 Back
31 See QQ414, 418 Back
32 IW20A Back
33 IW20A Back
34 IW24 and see IW19 Back
35 IW07 Back
36 Q4 Back
37 IW11 Back
38 Q4 Back
39 Q34, see also QQ6, 7 Back
40 Q453, IW11, IW59 Back
41 IW59, para 7.2, see also IW07, IW59, Q4 Back
42 See Q453 Back
43 IW57 Back
44 Figures supplied by DETR Back
45 IW32 Back
46 IW20 Back
47 IW04, IW20, IW59 Back
48 DETR, June 2000, Waterways for Tomorrow, para 6.68, p43 and see IW57 Back
49 See, for example, IW06 Back
50 IW67 Back
51 IW76, para 2.1 Back
52 IW76, para 5.2 Back
53 IW76 Back
54 IW74, see also Q179 Back
55 Q186 Back
56 Q186 Back
57 Q186 Back
58 Q184 Back
59 IW70, para 9 Back
60 Q204, IW74 Back
61 IW75 Back
62 IW75 Back
63 See IW49, IW54, paras 5, 14, 15 Back
64 DETR, June 2000, Waterways for Tomorrow, p37 Back
65 IW70, para 9 Back
66 See IW19 Back
67 IW52, para 20 Back
68 Q210 Back
69 The British Waterways Acts 1971, 1983 and 1995 Back
70 IW76 and Q197 Back
71 IW29 Back
72 IW42a Back
73 British Waterways, Annual Report and Accounts 1999/2000, p42 Back
74 A 'ransom strip' is a small area of land owned by a third party which controls access to adjoining land Back
75 British Waterways Financial Memorandum, para54 Back
76 HM Treasury 'Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government', otherwise known as 'the green book' Back
77 ie pre tax real discounted cash flow return on investment Back
78 eg the level of risk involved, whether private finance has been levered in, etc Back
79 Q374 Back
80 IW73, IW44 Back
81 IW52a, and see Q378, Q551 Back
82 See Annex Back
83 Q549 Back
84 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, June 1999, The Disposal of Historic Buildings, p17 Back
85 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, June 1999, The Disposal of Historic Buildings, p17 Back
86 Q549 Back
87 Q447 Back
88 IW56 Back
89 IW23 Back
90 IW09, IW51 Back
91 IW56 Back
92 IW38 Back
93 IW38, para 4.1 Back
94 IW57, para 29 Back
95 IW57, para 19 Back
96 IW28 Back
97 IW50, para 3.4 Back
98 Framework Document for British Waterways, February 1999 Back
99 QQ 113, 121, see also IW38 Back
100 IW38, para 3.1.8, Q113 Back
101 By length-see para 48 Back
102 Q114 Back
103 IW23b Back
104 IW23, IW42, para 16 Back
105 IW41 Back
106 IW51 Back
107 IW09, IW28, para2 4. & 4.9 Back
108 The Scotsman, 3/01/01, Ministers test the water for canal supplies Back
109 IW16 Back
110 IW16 Back
111 As a percentage of total direct income (ie excluding grant-in-aid). Source: British Waterways, Annual Report and Accounts, 1999-2000, p38 Back
112 IW50, para 4.1 Back
113 Q93 Back
114 IW42, para 26 Back
115 Q276 Back
116 IWW72 Back
117 IW06. See also IW29, IW53, IW72 Back
118 IW19, Q566 Back
119 IW19 Back
120 Q99 Back
121 IW33, para 3.2 Back
122 The British Waterways Act 1995 attached three conditions to licensing boats: that they must have third party insurance, must have a permanent mooring (or be 'continuously cruising') and must hold a boat safety certificate. This applies to all pleasure boats on all British Waterways canals. Back
123 Q284 Back
124 IW33, para 3.2 and see Q99 Back
125 Environment Agency Press Notice, 15 January, Navigation authorities accept boat safety scheme review team's interim recommendations Back
126 IW51 Back
127 IW16 Back
128 See submission by the Community Boats Association (IW54) Back
129 IW28, para 6.2 Back
130 IW50, para 6.1 Back
131 Q136, IW38, para 3.3 Back
132 IW25 Back
133 IW08, W25, IW40 Back
134 Q472 and see IW52, para 62, IW55, para 3.18 Back
135 IW57, para 6 Back
136 IW42, see also IW11 Back
137 DETR, June2000, Waterways for Tomorrow, para 5.1 Back
138 Q55 Back
139 Although, British Waterways does have responsibility for navigation on several rivers, including the Rivers Severn, Ure, Avon (from Hanham Lock to Bath) and the Ouse (Yorkshire) Back
140 IW57 Back
141 See IW46, IW52 Back
142 See paras 64-71, IW52 Back
143 IW15, IW21, IW22, IW24, IW27, IW28, IW30, IW35, IW46, IW56, IW61, IW69, Q143 Back
144 IW46, para2.4, IW24 Back
145 Q469, and see IW46, para 2.5 Back
146 IW46, para 2.5, see also Q49, IW12, IW77 Back
147 IW46, para 2.5. See also QQ488, 491 Back
148 IW22 Back
149 IW52, para 59, see also IW64, IW65 Back
150 IW52, para 66, see also IW42, IW50, IW55 Back
151 IW39 Back
152 See paras 67 & 6 of IW52 and IW52b Back
153 IW52B Back
154 Q388 Back
155 IW16, IW24, IW69, Q469 Back
156 QQ 383-466, Q469, IW15 Back
157 Q533 Back
158 IW55, para 3.25 Back
159 QQ152-154, IW39A Back
160 IW60 Back
161 Refs Back
162 See IW42 Back
163 IW70 Back
164 Q475 Back
165 see IW23, para 10 Back
166 DETR, October 2000, Planning Policy Guidance Note 11, Regional Planning Back
167 Q480, IW16, Appendix A1, IW70 Back
168 DETR, October 2000, Planning Policy Guidance Note 11, Regional Planning, p33 Back
169 See QQ166-171 Back
170 IW72 Back
171 The bridges planned as part of the construction of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road cross these canals leaving inadequate headroom for boats to pass. Back
172 IWAAC, 1998, Waterway Restoration Priorities Back
173 DETR, June 2000, Waterways for Tomorrow, para 6.51 Back
174 IW57, para 30 Back
175 IW72, QQ442-445, WWQQ541545 Back
176 Q541 Back
177 IW72 Back
178 See, for example, IW29a, IW55 Back
179 IW42a Back
180 Waterways is a devolved matter, so any change to current primary legislation would need to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. This could be dealt with in one of two ways. Either separate bills could be drafted for Scotland and for England and Wales; or the Scottish Parliament could pass a resolution requesting the UK Parliament to legislate for the UK as a whole. Back
|
