Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 31 July 2007