Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by Sir Adrian Stott BT (BW 06b)
POINTS ARISING
FROM GLOUCESTER
EVIDENCE SESSION
As suggested by the Chairman during the hearings
at Gloucester, I would like to make the following brief points
in response to the discussions, and appreciate the opportunity
to do so.
1. OWNERSHIP
OF PROPERTY
BY BRITISH
WATERWAYS
The Sub-Committee appears to be under the impression
that British Waterways (BW) is the owner of a significant proportion
of the riparian property along the waterways it manages. In fact,
I am informed that BW owns no more than 3% (three per cent)
of the property fronting its navigations.
In this context, allegations that redevelopment
by BW of its property is significantly altering the character
of the waterways cannot be sustained. It owns so little of the
frontage that it is impossible for it to have this effect.
2. PROPOSED OWNERSHIP
OF PROPERTY
BY BRITISH
WATERWAYS
I have proposed a substantial increase in the
size of BW's property portfolio as the most appropriate way of
addressing the shortfall in BW's revenue. I believe the Sub-Committee
may have assumed that the additional property would be riparian,
and thus its redevelopment would increase the impact on the waterways
of BW's property activities.
However, there is no reason that the additional
property should be riparian. The purpose of the portfolio is solely
to provide an income base to BW, and as such the property it contains
could be located anywhere. If, as I believe to be suitable, property
could be transferred to BW from the government's very substantial
holdings, it is most unlikely that any of the additional property
would be on the waterways. Thus the proposed increase in the size
of BW's portfolio would produce no additional physical impact
on the waterways or their character.
One question raised at the hearings was what
changes might be required in BW's powers. A removal of the current
restriction on its property holdings to riparian real estate is
one such desirable change.
3. GAIN FROM
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
BY BRITISH
WATERWAYS
There was discussion at the hearings of to which
party or parties any gains from development of BW's property should
accrue.
BW, when developing any of its property, must
seek exactly the same approvals as required of any other property
owner. As such, it is subject to the existing powers of (e.g.)
local authorities to extract from the developer various forms
of consideration for the benefit of (e.g.) the community.
As a result, there is no reason for any additional
requirements for the distribution of any gains BW may achieve.
In fact, such requirements would be damaging, as they would reduce
its ability to finance the waterways through its real estate portfolio.
4. ROLES OF
BRITISH WATERWAYS
There was some confusion during the discussions
about the roles of BW with respect to property, planning, and
development. To clarify these:
— Operational. BW is charged
primarily with operating the waterways. In this respect, it needs
to hold certain property (canal beds, the sites of locks and weirs,
etc.). Before it can redevelop or sell any of its property, it
must consider its operational requirements, and does so.
However, BW inherited (through nationalisation
of canal companies, etc.) very much more property than it needs
for operational purposes. For example, it does not need warehouses
and depots (as it is not in the freight business), yards (as it
has contracted out much of the waterways maintenance), lock cottages
(as it now employs hardly any lock keepers), etc. It is these
types of property that it has been disposing of and redeveloping.
This activity does not prejudice the operation of the waterways.
— Consultative. At its request,
BW several years ago was added to the list of statutory consul
tees with respect the development of property along the waterways.
When such a development is proposed, BW is automatically notified
of it, reviews it, and, if it would have a negative effect on
the waterways in BW's opinion, comments on it to the approving
authority.
— Development. When BW wishes
to develop on of its own properties, it must follow the normal
approval processes. It makes the conventional applications, and
must comply with the planning and development regulations of local
authorities, environmental and flood prevention regulations of
the Environment Agency and English Nature, heritage protection
requirements of English Heritage, etc. It must supply all the
information those regulatory bodies require. This ensures that
BW cannot be judge in its own case. It also ensures that BW's
proposals must be fully publicised.
In this light, allegations made by other witnesses
that BW is secretive about its developments, refuses to interact
with local authorities, or prejudices the operation of its waterways
for financial gain, are not credible.
5. CONSULTATION
BY BW
Several witnesses alleged that BW will not listen
to them.
However, in fact, over the past few years, BW
has pursued a major "Openness and Accountability" initiative.
This involved a zero-based review, in discussion with its users
and customers, of its consultation processes. It resulted in a
complete restructuring of how it consults with its users and of
the format and procedures for handling issues and meetings. It
also involved establishing a formal complaints procedure, which
can move issues quickly from local management to director level,
and from there to the fully-independent Waterways Ombudsman, if
the complainant remains dissatisfied.
Far from being uncooperative in this area, BW
can actually claim to be a model organisation in this respect.
It thus seems that the substance behind the
allegations is not that BW has not listened to the witnesses ,
but rather that it has not done what the witnesses wanted. This
is not proof of a shortcoming on BW's part.
Sir Adrian Stott Bt
April 2007
|
