Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2007
MR JOHN
FLETCHER, MR
NEIL EDWARDS
AND DR
ROGER SQUIRES
Q20 David Lepper: You have understandably
concentrated on the dangers of inappropriate property dealings
to raise money damaging the environment and the heritage and the
amenity of perhaps the people who use the waterways and live beside
the waterways. One of those has provided evidence to us and has
suggested that the National Audit Office should examine British
Waterways' property portfolio to establish whether some of those
developments have retained a reasonable return on capital value
for money. Is that a concern that you would also have? In other
words, they have involved themselves in these property dealings
but have not necessarily achieved all they could have done by
doing so in terms of financial value.
Mr Edwards: Whilst we would always
wish British Waterways to get the best it can out of a particular
situation, bearing in mind the heritage and that we want to safeguard,
I do not really think it is the remit of the Association to question
British Waterways in those particular aspects. Our role is to
try and safeguard the good of the waterways themselves, and that
is the point we would always particularly challenge on.
Q21 David Lepper: Finally, I take
what you have just said but do you feel that the way in which
British Waterways goes about its property dealings is always transparent?
Mr Edwards: I think to some extent
we think there could be some improvements. We do not say that
it is terrible or awful or we have real problems with it, but
I think users and the waterway public always want to know what
is happening with "our" waterways—"our"
in the widest sense of the public's waterways—and I think
to some extent British Waterways will be confined by commercial
confidentiality in any particular development they are undertaking.
We always look to British Waterways to be as open and transparent
as possible in everything they do, and we would encourage British
Waterways to try and explain to waterways users and the public
in general exactly what they are planning in as much detail as
they can without going into the commercially sensitive areas,
but the more open they are, the more explanation and the more
information made available, then the more satisfied users of the
waterways are likely to be that things are not being done behind
their backs. It also gives us an opportunity, where we see something
we think is wrong, say some heritage is being lost, to speak and
point this out and have a sensible discussion to reach the optimum
way forward, and I would like to think that occasionally we can
provide useful guidance and thoughts from the public to British
Waterways to try to assist and help them get the best out of the
waterways. The more open they are with us, the more we will try
to assist.
Q22 Mrs Moon: In terms of the development
you describe and the eight-storey housing development, is that
land that has already been sold by British Waterways to a developer,
or is this a development that British Waterways is investing in
and planning to market itself?
Dr Squires: The site at Brentford
is a conglomerate site where marriage value has been gained by
British Waterways through their property development associated
company, Isis, which had put together the overall site. So British
Waterways has brought some land that it owned in but other elements
of that site have been brought together. So it was a large commercial
site under multi ownership and the ownership has been drawn together
over the years, as all property developers do.
Q23 Mrs Moon: So they retained their
part ownership but have merged with others?
Dr Squires: Yes.
Q24 Mrs Moon: So it is their plan,
not somebody else's?
Dr Squires: It is an Isis plan,
Isis being an associated company with British Waterways.
Q25 Mrs Moon: In terms of the warehouse
you described, what is its current use?
Dr Squires: When the Isis developers
decided that the plan should go forward they gave notice to the
steel stockholder who operated within the warehouse that they
needed to end the lease, so 14 men were put out of work when that
lease ended and the warehouse was vacated.
Q26 Mrs Moon: When was that?
Dr Squires: That was about a year
ago. The actual element that we are particularly concerned with
is an overhanging wet dock and warehouse which was an interchange
facility which is in a conservation area which, equally, the developer
wishes to remove as part of the development. We felt it was inappropriate
to take away an element that was already within a conservation
area, because it was part of the ambience of that conservation
area, although it was not a listed building as such.
Q27 Mrs Moon: And you know for certain
that people were made unemployed as a result of this development?
Dr Squires: When the firm closed
down the 14 employees of the steel stockholder lost their job,
because the business was shut down.
Q28 Chairman: Can I just ask about
this issue of the asset value of the BW interests? In their evidence
the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs says that the essential
property portfolio should be increased to at least a billion pounds.[1]
Does it matter to you that we know accurately what the asset value
of the property that BW owns is, and would you accept that figure
of a billion pounds?
Mr Fletcher: I am not competent
to respond in detail on that but, if I can answer the question
indirectly, at the moment British Waterways is, of course, constrained
by what it can do with its assets and where it can hold its assets
and certainly, were the opportunity afforded to British Waterways
to use its assets in a wider way, perhaps by having holdings other
than immediately adjacent to its own navigations, whether it was
managing those navigations subsequently or not, there would be
an opportunity for, in fact, a wider income stream. We would still
retain that concern about the pressures that were created in how
that land was developed, and once the pressure gets too great
then the judgment may be affected, but the potential to develop
an income stream from a wider use of land adjacent to waterways
in general, not just British Waterways' waterways, would be one
way of creating a further income stream which would not be detrimental
to the waterways, with all the caveats I have already expressed.
Q29 Chairman: Can I be clear then:
do you think that BW should know exactly what its current asset
base is, and should be transparent about that and should try to
bring forward an income stream more definitively from the knowledge
of that asset base?
Mr Fletcher: Yes.
Q30 Mr Jack: We have talked indirectly
about leisure, but it clearly has tremendous potential. Part of
the renaissance of canals has been the use by leisure users either
of the canal or the towpath, but if we concentrate on the waterboard
leisure use do you feel there is further potential for that to
be developed, and if the answer to that is yes, in what way and
how is it being held back? If it is no, could you give us the
reasons why?
Mr Fletcher: I would have to say
yes, but again there are caveats. The waterways are in places
getting quite crowded, and one of the joys of the waterways for
all users is that the level of use should be adequate but not
overdone. There are honeypot sites which do tend to get very overcrowded
with visitors and with boats. That can detract from the quality
of the experience, and there is a balance to be achieved. The
one thing that is not being fully explored but which British Waterways
has, with the help of various Lottery funds, made great strides
on is expanding the network. Expanding the network has created
tremendous opportunities for greater use by all users even in
many places that were nowhere near waterways, particularly in
the north west where I come from and over the Pennines, and I
know that colleagues in the Chairman's constituency have looked
with some envy at what has gone on in the north west over quite
a long period. But it is not just the general contribution to
leisure: it in fact has produced urban regeneration and improvement
in the quality of living of everybody. Places like Stalybridge
on the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and places along the Rochdale
Canal are all making tremendous strides forward, and increasingly
the opportunities to improve rural diversification have been taking
place. So it is in the expansion of the system, and the Kennet
& Avon is a classic example, and the opportunities for expanding
the system which pay back with a very quick return. I am not an
expert but I know that the Kennet & Avon Canal in particular
produced results far in excess of expectations.
Q31 Mr Jack: So, with your knowledge
of the system, can you give us some indication as to where this
potential by expansion still lies? Is there a whole raft of schemes
available?
Mr Edwards: There are about 100
different waterway restoration schemes around the country, but
one example is on the Lichfield and Hatherton canals, where the
northern parts of the Birmingham Canal Navigations are very under-used
and there is enormous potential for much greater usage, but they
are not used because they are cut off from the rest of the system;
they are at the end of a no through road, if you like. But by
restoring a couple of links, one on the Hatherton side joining
the Staffs & Worcester Canal and one on the north east side
of the Birmingham Canal Navigations that would connect into the
Coventry and Birmingham & Fazeley canals. You would connect
the northern Birmingham Canal Navigations to very well-used waterways
that are almost overused in terms of the number of boaters, walkers,
anglers and everybody else who uses the waterways. So for relatively
modest amounts of expansion of the waterways system you could
not only restore those waterways and encourage regeneration on
these corridors, but you would open up the whole of the northern
Birmingham navigations.
Q32 Mr Jack: If it is that good and
the payback is as quick as you imagine, why are British Waterways
not taking advantage of developing it, (a) because it would increase
their income stream and (b) listening to what you said before
about waterside property development opening up new possibilities,
the way you put it it is a no-brainer and let's go and do it all
tomorrow but there must be reasons why these things are not happening?
Mr Edwards: I think British Waterways
in many respects are doing this but they only have so much they
can invest at any one time, and so much capacity for taking financial
risks in terms of seeing these developments happen.
Q33 Mr Jack: So are there some ways
in which British Waterways' finances are configured which do not
allow them to be more entrepreneurial in terms of developing these
new linkages to get round these capacity constraints you have
identified?
Mr Edwards: All these restoration
schemes require a package of funding from all sorts of funders,
but British Waterways always needs to stand behind them and help
development and do some of the early work in conjunction with
the volunteer restoration schemes. At times of financial constraint
British Waterways does not have the investment or the ability
to invest in a whole heap of schemes all at once; it tends to
pick those that it feels are the best goers. At the moment it
is particularly pushing on the Droitwich canals and the Cotswold
canals where money is available; Manchester Bolton & Bury
where money is starting to be available—
Q34 Mr Jack: When you say money is
"starting" to be available, is that British Waterways'
own money or other people's?
Mr Edwards: Mostly it is third
party money in terms of the National Lottery Fund, regional development
agencies, local authorities in many cases, very often supported
by the voluntary sector raising money itself. All these also,
though, require an element of British Waterways even if it is
time rather than physical money being put in, and when a restored
waterway is being constructed usually it takes a lead party to
take the responsibility of keeping the package together and possibly
taking a risk with any cost overruns. Very often it has been British
Waterways taking the lead in seeing these restoration packages
through to final re-opening, and British Waterways has to commit
the manpower, the management, and the resources in general to
see this through, and the risk, if anything goes wrong. Now, if
BW is given the money to invest then it can do more of these schemes,
and I think it is true to say in nearly all the waterway restoration
schemes that happened the reports and studies that have been done
afterwards have shown them to be great successes and well worth
the money spent, and we have never heard the Lottery Fund or any
funding agency regret money they put in to waterways restoration
schemes.
Q35 Mr Jack: If you expand the system
in the way you described, have we enough marina capacity to accommodate
all the extra boats?
Mr Edwards: In some parts of the
country there is a severe shortage of moorings. British Waterways
is taking steps to try and encourage mooring developers but there
are many planning constraints that make it quite difficult. In
other parts of the country there is spare capacity, and very often
it is a case that some improvements to the waterways in a particular
area can stimulate demand in those areas.
Q36 Mr Jack: When you say planning
"constraints" do you mean that the planning guidance
which local authorities have to follow is restrictive to the type
of development you are talking about, or are there other features
which you could explain to us?
Mr Edwards: I would suggest there
are a number of hoops that need to be gone through before any
particular marina development can take place. It may be a visual
amenity, it may be to do with nature conservation, it may be to
do with flood control in a particular area, or to do with the
actual capacity of the road network to cope with an additional
marina.
Q37 Mr Jack: So it is more planning
requirements than constraints?
Mr Edwards: There are a whole
host of thing that needs to be put together.
Dr Squires: One of the problems
with the waterway network is the extension of the canal network
brings a lot of money into the local community by virtue of this
new asset being provided but only the boaters' usage of that comes
back to British Waterways. The rest of the money goes to the entrepreneurs
and the local authorities in the area. It is well recognised that
there is a property appreciation of properties alongside water
of 20% added value, but that added value goes into the pocket
of the developer and the added rateable value goes into the local
authority and not British Waterways. So British Waterways might
facilitate but they get no return other than a few extra boats
going along which we have identified is not the main usage of
the waterway when so many others use it for nothing.
Q38 Chairman: Is one of the problems
not that we use the term "leisure" to encompass a number
of different groups, and that these groups are not necessarily
singing from the same song sheet? Firstly you have the issue of
those who live on their boats who are not necessarily that keen
to have lots of tourists on boats going past, and as some in the
room will know I also had the opportunity to go and see automatic
bridges on the Kennet & Avon at the weekend, because some
of my good denizens are not very happy to have bridges up and
down all the time, and not happy with the thought of some of those
bridges being automated which they think is going to make their
lives more of a misery. It may well be that we are bringing more
money into the area for the purposes of tourism, but if you are
stuck for a quarter of an hour every time you try and go over
the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal you do see some of the downsides
of living on an island where you have to cross over the canals.
Is that not something that is under-estimated when we refer to
all this as "leisure", when in reality there are these
different groups?
Dr Squires: In any area in any
facility the local planners have to identify what they are trying
to achieve and there is negotiation that needs to take place,
and sometimes it is necessary for the road planners to find a
way of getting their road over the waterway without the lifting
bridge, and that is quite easily done—
Q39 Chairman: I am going to smile
because that is the view of the some of the people I represent,
but it does not quite happen that way because it costs a fortune
to raise bridges and so on, does it not?
Dr Squires: But very often one
could reasonably argue that there is a decision that has to be
taken as to where the unacceptable delay cuts in and an alternative
solution has to be found. Very often the bypass has gone round
the town, taken the traffic out of the town and the whole of the
centre of the town has been pedestrianised, and the same can happen
with the waterways, and when a new road scheme is planned you
actually plan the scheme not to have a lifting bridge in it but
have a bridge that goes over the waterway. A very good example
of this is on the Wendover Arm of the Grand Union Canal when the
new bypass was going in at Aston Clinton. The new bypass with
a small diversion of the waterway had a bridge with sufficient
headroom for the waterway to get underneath it whereas, if it
had not been diverted, it could have been a major catastrophe
in that the waterway could never have been reopened. So there
are ways round problems and one has to identify what is the most
cost effective solution.
Mr Fletcher: If I may, Chairman,
we have a mantra within the Inland Waterways Association "Waterways
for all", and quite clearly the direct users of waterways
often come into conflict one with another, whether it is anglers
and boaters or whatever, and there is a need to get together and
talk and come up with the compromise to which Dr Squires has referred.
On those waterways restored fairly recently, particularly over
the millennium period, where there are movable bridges, then in
fact the problems have not been as great as were anticipated and
I cannot think of any problem on the length of the Rochdale Canal
with movable bridges where there has been a significant problem
that has annoyed the local residents at all, and I live quite
close to it.
Chairman: Let us move now on to the freight
issue. David Lepper?
1 Ev 300, para 14 Back
| 
