Memorandum submitted by the Residential
Boat Owners' Association (BW 24)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The Residential Boat Owners' Association
(RBOA) represents users who have a major commitment to the inland
waterways through their life style.
— The RBOA recognises a current good
working relationship and stakeholder satisfaction with British
Waterways (BW)
— The poor quality of the inland waterways
system prior to the establishment of BW as a Public Corporation
points to the basic reliance on grant-in-aid.
— The boating market is fragile and
cannot provide a major element of the required funding.
— Funding of the inland waterways must
be on the basis of it being a national asset with free and inclusive
access for all.
— The national heritage will be put
at risk if funding for the inland waterways is vulnerable to political
pressure.
— Base funding should be through a
long term contract between BW and Government.
— This core funding should cover BW's
stewardship responsibility for the national heritage.
— Commercial income should be focused
on procuring additional enhancement and user benefits.
— The long term contract should be
directly with Government and independent of the sponsoring Department.
— There should be a greater acknowledgement
by local government of the value of inland waterways which benefit
their rate payers.
CURRENT USERS
OF THE
WATERWAYS NETWORK
AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP WITH
BRITISH WATERWAYS
1. The Residential Boat Owners' Association
(RBOA) represents those who live on boats on the canals, rivers
and coastal estuaries of this Country. We work closely with British
Waterways (BW), the Environment Agency and other Navigation Authorities
to promote responsible and sustainable living afloat and to resolve
problems or inequalities affecting those who have chosen this
lifestyle.
2. The RBOA recognises that BW and other
navigation authorities have a prime responsibility to maintain
and develop their waterways for navigation and that their primary
objectives must be focused on this. The RBOA has always been involved
in consultation and discussion with BW regarding the widest possible
use of the waterways for the benefit of all, whether living on
water or land, and we recognise the importance of this in achieving
the maximum potential for leisure, education and healthy living.
3. In our opinion, the relationship between
users and BW has improved greatly in recent years from the earlier
period when there was little consultation or dialogue about customer
needs and their priorities for focusing spend. Initiatives such
as "Openness and Accountability", User Group Meetings
and the British Waterways Advisory Forum (BWAF) have contributed
to this.
4. Those who choose to live afloat have
a commitment to the waterways, demonstrated by their major decision
to relocate from the security of a land based property to a boat
which is legally a chattel. As people who live totally in close
proximity to the waterways, RBOA members are only too aware of
the frailty as well as the value of a system which is in many
cases over 200 years old.
5. All boaters have invested considerably
in the inland waterways with boats estimated as accounting for
a large part of its total investment. We do not deny that boaters
gain considerable enjoyment from this investment but all surveys
of visitors to the waterside have emphasised the importance of
boats as an attraction and interest to all visitors. We maintain
that boaters pay more than their fair share given that there are
over 300 million visits to the waterways annually.
THE FINANCIAL
FRAMEWORK OF
BRITISH WATERWAYS
AND THE
IMPACT OF
CHANGES IN
DEFRA'S
BUDGET
6. We can recall the situation some years
ago when waterways were not adequately funded, necessitating a
poor quality or degree of maintenance work. This often resulted
in major failures of engineering structures and either extended
stoppages or the need to divert money away from other routine
maintenance. We believe that the saying "a stitch in time
saves nine" is nowhere more appropriate than when applied
to the waterways system. The ultimate solution, to permanently
close navigations has been proved in the past to be a disaster,
leaving problems of flooding, health risks from stagnant shallow
lengths of disused canals and the risk to children and vulnerable
adults from the lack of a public presence.
7. The creation of BW as a Public Corporation
in 1999 was a major step forward in encouraging business management
freedom and allowing financial flexibility to tackle the previous
years of neglect in the maintenance of the inland waterways system.
This action in creating the new framework, taken by the then Waterways
Minister, retained the basic reliance on Government grant for
the major part of its income, alongside the freedom to raise money
from other third party sources.
8. BW cannot sustain itself purely on funding
from navigation users. We believe that the boat ownership market
is fragile and we have recently seen indications from our members
that cost increases, licence fees, mooring charges, essential
maintenance and the possibility of fully taxed diesel are acting
as disincentives. This is particularly serious if it discourages
new and younger entrants into the market or makes this activity
socially exclusive. Attempts to mitigate the Defra cuts by increasing
licence fees and other income from boaters would have an adverse
effect on the market and may even be counter productive. Alternative
income streams are essential to BW.
9. The inland waterways are a national asset
and a vital part of our national heritage. The majority of beneficiaries,
whether walking, cycling, enjoying family waterside pursuits and
education benefits, or benefiting from the increased value of
waterside property, do not contribute directly to them. We support
BW's attempts to Increase income from visitors to the waterways,
for instance by charging for car parking at 'honeypot sites' but
this income will always be limited. The majority of towpaths and
associated amenities will always give free and inclusive access
to all and this must be recognised at national level.
10. Another serious result of lack of funding
is the deleterious effect on our national heritage. Examples still
exist where inappropriate materials and construction techniques
have been adopted to minimise costs, in many cases ruining the
heritage benefits for future generations. Many of the waterways
structures are listed and must therefore be repaired with correct
heritage techniques and materials. The only alternative to reduce
the major costs that this implies would be to ignore them until
total demolition or closure is essential for health and safety
reasons. Funding to preserve the nation's heritage must not be
vulnerable to political pressure such as the current Defra deficit.
We do not believe that Defra is in a position to predict these
long term implications of the proposed cuts.
11. It is therefore right and proper for
the public purse to be used as a base for funding the waterways,
as the majority of those who benefit do not pay directly. Grant-in-aid
decided on the basis of political criteria is now being proved
not to be stable enough for BW to use efficiently. They need the
security of knowing that their base level grant will be maintained
at real costs in the long term. We believe that the best way of
achieving this would be with a long term contract between BW and
the Treasury. This would recognise the waterways as a public asset
held in the custody of BW. The contract would be based on the
principle of maintaining this asset at a specified standard or
for the benefits that the waterways provide to the Nation. The
level of funding should either be set according to costs, based
on the value of the waterways assets in the custody of BW, and
their repairs and renewals, or by a contract whereby BW charges
the public purse for the benefits that its waterways provide for
the nation.
THE STEWARDSHIP
WORK AND
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES
OF BRITISH
WATERWAYS
12. The RBOA is of the view that in recent
years the need to exploit its commercial activity and head towards
a position of financial self-sustainability, has resulted in BW
"taking its eye off the ball" regarding its stewardship
responsibilities. The need to maintain a 250 year old canal system
with all the heritage and public safety implications make it unlikely
that it can ever be run on a totally commercial basis. That is
why we support a clear division between the core funding of the
stewardship remit as described above and income from their commercially
based activities which would be aimed at enhancing the benefits
for all users.
13. A contract between BW and Government
as proposed above would give a core funding level, more reliable
than grant-in-aid, to ensure that the waterways are maintained
at a good base level appropriate to their heritage status. We
believe that commercial activities could then be identified to
support the additional activities needed to enhance and extend
these benefits. The Commercial Director of BW explained this is
at a recent presentation to the British Waterways Advisory Forum
(BWAF) on this subject. He stated that the objective of BW's property
development portfolio was to provide future income to support
the corporation's waterways activities. BWAF members accepted
this approach and the benefits of identifying the purposes of
capital and revenue funding.
14. We recognise that BW is faced with a
difficult balance between maximising the income from its property
portfolio and maintaining the heritage and public amenity of the
waterways. This is apparent in the development of historic boatyards
and wharfs located on high value sites. We are concerned that
a preoccupation with commercial development can result in traditional
boatyards being lost to high value housing schemes which exclude
full public access . There are solutions to be achieved through
planning gain and other local authority agreements putting back
benefits for the benefit of all users. We support BW's initiatives
in achieving additional income from its property portfolio but
maintain that this must be secondary to its stewardship responsibilities.
Maintainance of a high standard waterway network
and the needs of financially contributing stakeholders must come
first. It is important for BW to attract a high level of expertise
in its board members and senior staff, in order to meet these
challenges.
15. We support the need for a greater borrowing
ability for BW and the ability to manage their property portfolio
in a less restricted way. They should have powers for greater
co-operation with others in the investment in property and raising
of third party income
POTENTIAL FOR
GROWTH IN
LEISURE AND
FREIGHT USE
OF THE
WATERWAYS NETWORK
16. There is potential for growth in the
canal network, although there are capacity limits on parts of
the system in peak periods. The supply of moorings is not keeping
up with the supply of new boats and BW has now recognised this
as a major disincentive to growth in the boat market. RBOA is
working closely with BW and other organisations to resolve the
bureaucratic and planning problems in developing more mooring
sites. We have identified a large demand for good quality residential
moorings in a variety of locations, and along with BW we are working
on a group under the auspices of the Association of Inland Navigation
Authorities (AINA) to encourage a more enlightened attitude from
Planning Authorities.
17. We also see substantial opportunities
in growth for both local and tourist visitors to the waterways.
There are good examples where locations have been sensitively
developed to increase the attractions for day visitors, whilst
retaining much of their intrinsic value. However this mainly applies
to "honeypot" sites such as Brindley Place, Birmingham
and Foxton Locks. A greater challenge is to open up the lesser
used parts of the waterways for more casual visitors, with low
key visitor centres and other appropriate attractions such as
at Fradley. This is very relevant to the Government's initiatives
towards more healthy living and exercise for all people as canal
towpaths provide a low cost resource in achieving this. Given
the establishment costs and upkeep on such resources it must be
recognised that they are unlikely to generate income. A holistic
view of the benefits in line with other Government agendas must
be taken in funding these initiatives.
18. Another approach to growing the waterways
network is through the restoration of derelict or non-navigable
canals. The RBOA, both on a national basis and through the involvement
of individual members, has always supported such projects and
the local benefits that they create. However, the long term sustainability
of restoration schemes must be carefully considered to ensure
that they do not become a drain on the base maintenance funding.
The Rochdale Canal was restored through third party funding and
BW took on the responsibility for maintenance. They must be congratulated
for finding the funding to deal with subsequent major problems
on the canal but, with the cuts in the Defra grant, this is unlikely
to happen in the future. The result could be a long term closure
and a loss of all the benefits to the local economy that such
a restoration had achieved. This demonstrates the need for the
base level maintenance funding to be reviewed to take into account
extensions to the system or agreements with the local authorities
involved, in order to guarantee their long term sustainability.
19. We believe that there is the potential
for steady if limited freight use of the inland waterways. This
will primarily be limited to parts of the system which are more
easily adaptable to larger scale freight handling and are not
in conflict with leisure uses. The government agenda for sustainable
transport systems, particularly in the handling of waste materials
at source, presents an ideal opportunity for commercial use of
the waterways, for example directly from canalside located retail
outlets to recycling centres. This should be considered as an
important criteria in the conflict between the development pressure
and the retention of existing wharfs as discussed above. Loss
of these is a major disincentive to future development of freight
use. A further problem which BW face is in obtaining sufficient
investment to develop the infrastructure to support modern freight
handling.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BRITISH WATERWAYS
AND CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
20. In our correspondence to the Secretary
of State regarding the Defra cuts in grant- in-aid, we pointed
out that the current problems that this Department finds itself
in are nothing whatever to do with the inland waterways. BW has
successfully managed its budgets within recent years and is understandably
aggrieved that it has to share in mitigating against the overspend.
It is therefore tempting to support a move of the BW remit to
another Department. There are arguments for a return to the Transport
Department or involvement with leisure and tourism as sponsors.
21. Our view is that the remit given to
BW and the ways in which this is managed to give BW more flexibility
and long term financial security, is more important than exactly
where it sits within Government departments. Changes in Government
or in Government leadership may well result in future changes
in remits between departments and the long term sustainability
of BW must not be effected by this. This should include a long
term contract which would be independent of the sponsoring department,
for the maintenance of the waterways as a public asset. The government
structure for BW should also allow it more freedom within the
public corporation structure and its ability to generate partnerships
for property development.
22. The RBOA believes that there is a general
lack of acknowledgment by local authorities of the benefits that
their rate payers gain from the waterways in their area. These
may include the amenity and leisure benefits, education, healthy
living and sustainable commuting. In some instances, the waterways
are actually used by local authorities to contribute towards their
public open space requirement without any financial contribution
from the public precept.
The Residential Boat Owners' Association (RBOA)
January 2007
| 
