Memorandum submitted by Wynns Group (BW
41)
1. INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Wynns Ltd are the UKs only independent
transport consultancy specialising in the movement of abnormal
indivisible loads. In 1998 and working on behalf of Powergen,
Wynns engineered the delivery of 7 loads in excess of 150 tonnes
to Cottam Power Station in Nottinghamshire. The loads were delivered
directly to site via the River Trent.
1.2 In November 2000 Wynns subsidiary company
Robert Wynn & Sons Ltd was awarded an £8.5 million freight
facilities grant. The grant represented 99% of the total cost
of the design and build of a specialist ro/ro barge and the purchase
and conversion of a former inland tanker barge. The vessels, later
named the Terra Marique and the Inland Navigator, work as a system
to maximise the potential of the inland waterway network for the
carriage of the largest and heaviest abnormal indivisible loads.
Specifically, Special Order & VR1 categories which are granted
for road movement by the Secretary Of State for Transport.
1.3 The Governments "water preferred
policy" was announced on 11 June 2002 by the then Parliamentary
Under Secretary for Transport David Jamieson MP and clearly states
that:
"the Departments VSE Division will henceforth
adopt a policy whereby water transportation is the preferred mode
for the movement of the largest and heaviest abnormal indivisible
loads. Road movements will only be authorised where the Department
has considered the possibility but believes water transportation
is not feasible".
1.4 Both our vessels can navigate on Britsh
Waterways managed waters. The Terra Marique is some what limited
by her size and is limited to the Upper Trent. However the Inland
Navigator can access regional centres such as Nottingham, Leeds,
Rotherham, York and Worcester all via the commercial waterways
network.
1.5 The commercial waterways network we
refer to is that which is designated within the 1968 Transport
Act, much of which is now managed by British Waterways.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FREIGHT
AND THE
ROLE FUNDING
CAN PLAY
TO STIMULATE
THIS
2.1 The Committee has indicated that it
would like to consider the development of British Waterways in
the context of the policies set out by the Government in documents
such as Waterways for Tomorrow.
2.2 In the 2000 published "Waterways
for Tomorrow" it stated that the Government wished to
encourage the transfer of freight from roads to water-borne transport
where this is practical, economic and environmentally desirable.
It further stated:
— We will consult about extending the
FFG scheme to encourage additional applications for inland waterways
projects. Options will include grants for waterway projects covering
non-capital as well as capital costs (as for rail) and the opportunity
for grant to be paid directly to navigation authorities for the
provision of freight infrastructure.
— We will sponsor an inland waterways
freight study group including representatives of British Waterways,
other members of AINA, commercial operators, waterway user groups,
local authorities and the private sector.
— We will invite the freight study
group to examine cost-effective and practical ways in which freight
transport on the inland waterways can be increased, and whether
there is a need for further studies examining issues such as whether
the niche market for freight carrying on the historic narrow and
broad canals can be expanded.
2.3 While it would be unfair to suggest
that the Government did not carry through its proposals as outlined
above, we believe that it is clear that following the review of
the freight grant system, the publishing of both the Freight Study
Group report and the Governments response, we are no further forward
in terms of the sustained development of inland waterway freight
carriage on the British Waterways navigations.
2.4 One of the main reasons why this is
case is that freight is not seriously on the agenda of British
Waterways. Furthermore, we have evidence to suggest that British
Waterways do not pursue the carriage of freight due to (they claim)
it being a loss making side of their businesses.
2.5 The Government in its Response to Freight
Study Group Report stated that they would strengthen British Waterways
Framework Document to encourage it to exploit opportunities for
freight traffic. We have no evidence to suggest this was carried
out. If it were, we would ask why has it not had a significant
effect on the amount of freight carried on there waterways.
2.6 The Government response also welcomes
the creation of a Head of Freight development post within British
Waterways. This role lasted less than four years until the national
freight team within British Waterways was cut from three members
of staff to two with the role being downgraded to Freight Marketing
Manager.
2.7 It should be noted by the Committee
that following the cut in funding to British Waterways, we understand
that British Waterways have decided to make those responsible
on a national basis for freight development be made redundant.
This we believe further typifies British Waterways attitude to
developing freight carriage on its waterways.
2.8 While we did welcome the creation of
regional "Freight Champions", as at the time they were
to work along side the national freight team, it has come increasingly
clear to us that the work undertaken by these post holders is
reactive rather than the proactive. Freight Champions were existing
senior staff based at British Waterways offices across the country.
Our fear being that as already busy people they would not be able
to devote the time and have the knowledge to act as catalysts
for freight facilitation and development. We have expressed this
to the Chief Executive of British Waterways.
2.9 It should also be noted that British
Waterways have appointed a number of independent board members
with experience in property and leisure industries. Their is nobody
in place who has come from the logistics industry. We would ask
why is this the case if freight is a core activity. It is further
evidence we believe of the semantics being played out between
British Waterways and the Government.
2.10 The funding of British waterways has
been a high profile issue in the last months. While we are concerned
about the short-term impacts of this, there is a need for a fundamental
review of British waterways funding arrangements.
2.11 It is our belief that the funding of
British Waterways provides an opportunity for the Government to
incentivise British Waterways. We see targets being set of other
Executive Agencies and other arms of central government yet there
is no scheme whereby the more freight carriage British Waterways
facilitate the more funding they receive from there sponsoring
department. You would hope that the savings gained in areas such
as congestion and emissions should ensure that the Government
get value for money via its investment.
3. THE NEED
FOR A
JOINED UP
APPROACH
3.1 Due to the nature of their role and
responsibilities British Waterways are required to interact with
a number of different Government departments, regional and local
government as well as other stakeholders such as Regional Development
Agencies and the Highways Agency.
3.2 Firstly we would question whether responsibility
for the commercial waterway network should be within the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It would seem more appropriate
to us that responsibility for the commercial navigations rested
with the Department for Transport, which was responsible for transport.
Until the commercial waterways are considered as part of our national
transport network then we believe they will not be able to move
towards fulfilling there potential as means of carrying freight.
We are increasingly seeing on the continent similar size waterways
being used to carry substantial amounts of cargo. It is for Government
to put in place the structure which will allow our commercial
waterways to play there part within a fully integrated transport
system.
3.3 The planning process should play a significant
role in facilitating the development of waterborne freight carriage.
Documents such as "Planning for freight on inland waterways"
highlight the fact that there is much guidance issued by the Government
which if applied would assist in the development of waterborne
freight carriage. One of the reasons why this guidance has not
resulted in a significant increase in tonnage carried is that
British Waterways are more often than not the only body consulted
by local and regional bodies when they are drafting regional and
local strategies. And as freight is not high up there agenda opportunities
are being lost.
3.4 An example of this is the redevelopment
of Diglis Basin on the Severn. The planning authority spoke to
no-one regarding the impact of the redevelopment of the last remaining
freight wharf in Worcester. This was due to the fact that the
applicant for the planning permission to redevelop the site was
British Waterways itself.
Indeed and as we have stated, in a recent letter
to Robert Wynn & Sons, British Waterways Chief Executive,
Robin Evans, attempted to justify the disbanding of his single
person freight marketing team by advising that some £500,000
was collected in revenue through freight tolls and over £700,000
spent on facilitation. Quite how British Waterways account for
this remains something of a mystery. It is our understanding that
under the 1968 Transport Act, British Waterways are obliged to
maintain the commercial navigations suitable for carrying freight
yet they have not only consistently failed to do this through
lack of maintenance, dredging and the continual selling of wharves,
they now appear to then add the cost of maintenance, implicit
in the act, to their argument to disband the freight team.
4. SUMMARY
4.1 In summary, we believe that British
Waterways should be doing more to encourage modal shift from road
to commercial waterway. As a Navigation Authority responsible
for freight carrying waterways they should have senior staff responsible
for freight rather than devolving it down to a local level.
4.2 The government should reconsider where
responsibility for the commercial waterways sits within its own
departments and should also consider how the funding arrangements
might be restructured to encourage British Waterways to champion
freight development.
Wynns Group
January 2007
| 
