Memorandum submitted by Simon Robbins
(BW 23)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To improve and succeed in the areas the Sub
Committee identified, I believe British Waterways must improve
performance on Openness and Accountability.
1. I believe progressing in this direction
will enhance BW's and DEFRA's stated aims and ensure BW's activities
remain relevant and closely attuned to the needs and aspirations
of existing and future stakeholders.
2. BW have made some progress with this
issue, but I believe that such progress,
— has not been consistent across all
areas of operation,
— has often been painful in its inception,
— has consequently often been many
years late in happening and in too many instances only commenced
following prolonged pressure and criticism.
3. I would identify four headline areas
of particular personal concern which I believe impact on all the
subject areas the Committee has asked respondents to comment on:
There seems to be little clear separation between
BW's duties to maintain and improve a much-valued heritage and
leisure structure, which the majority of recipients do not pay
for at the point of use, versus its need to generate independent
income. In the extreme the supposed custodians of the waterways
are also now its asset strippers.
B—Lack of Confidence over outcomes
Operational matters and BW's property development
activities and other commercial income streams should in consequence
be subject to measurable targets and standards. Outcomes should
be independently scrutinised perhaps using a methodology akin
to the Audit Commission's Key Lines of Enquiry for other public
services.
C—Commercial Exposure to financial risk
Financial management mechanisms in BW's existing
commercial activities are opaque and just through uncertainty
many users do not have full confidence in them. Many stakeholders
are at best reluctant to offer confidence over the proposal that
increased commercial activity represents a reliable or sustainable
income stream.
D—Failing to add value through public
involvement
I believe there is a wealth of experience and
goodwill available towards BW but which is at best being left
untapped and at worst, when overlooked or rejected, is translated
into outright hostility and frustration at feeling excluded from
the decision making processes surrounding a national treasure
which most stakeholders are passionate about and wish to see succeed.
DETAILED SUBMISSION
Introduction
4. My main experience of British Waterways
(BW) is as a craft licence holder of many years standing. I have
owned narrowboats for over 17 years, and have lived on my boat
as my main and principal home since 1991.
5. I have campaigned actively on boating
issues throughout this time. I am a member of the Residential
Boat Owners Association, (RBOA), the Barge Association (DBA) and
the National Association of Boat Owners (NABO). I am currently
a member of NABO Council.
6. This submission is offered in a personal
capacity.
The financial framework of British Waterways and
the impact of changes in DEFRA's budget
7. I offer the general observation that
BW ideally needs a predictable financial framework. Variations
in Grant in Aid at short notice are particularly damaging and
make it impossible for BW to plan strategically.
8. Other contributors are likely to comment
on this so I will not elaborate here as I am confident the Committee
will hear much on this which reflects my views.
9. I have attempted to highlight other issues
of personal concern which I believe are also relevant to BW's
financial health and sustainability in the comments below.
Current users of the waterway network and their
relationships with British Waterways
10. Access to the waterways is free at the
point of use to most users and that is right and proper.
11. However I am unashamed in suggesting
that of boat owners are worthy of special consideration.
12. BW is geographically the largest single
inland navigation authority and custodians of the lion's share
of our inland waterways. Their network is also usually links the
other smaller navigations to each other.
13. The reason boat owners are unique among
waterway users is because we invest large amounts of capital in
our craft, frequently amounts comparable to owning a second home.
14.We collectively bring many millions of pounds
a year, every year, to the inland waterways' economy through services
we buy through waterways businesses we trade with. A significant
proportion of this money flows directly and indirectly to BW.
15. While backlog repairs to navigation
and infrastructure have greatly reduced over the last decade there
are still many areas where general upkeep is not consistent. One
is used to having to use facilities which are imperfect. The network
is still fragile in places and if overall funding levels are not
sustained, recent gains in the physical health of the network
could quickly be lost.
16. On the positive side all main navigational
routes remain passable and all the main structures are functional
for most of the year. This is to the great credit of BW's front
line maintenance and operational staff.
17. The towpath and immediate vicinity of
the canals and rivers under BW's control in general remain highly
attractive to the general public for a variety of leisure and
amenity activities and this is again largely to the credit of
frontline staff.
18. However as a boating customer I do not
always feel BW value me as a loyal customer and from my experience
as a Council Member of NABO I can say with certainty that many
other boaters share these feelings.
19. Pricing policy towards BW managed permanent
moorings has seen fees rise by amounts well in excess of inflation
each year, especially since 2001, often in exchange for no improvement
in service. The policy that led to these increases was introduced
with grossly inadequate consultation.
20. In my case BW are my mooring provider
and despite seeing higher fees, in January 2004 I had to engage
the Waterways Ombudsman to get essential repairs done to the mooring,
despite complaints and constant dialogue with BW going back to
1997. Remedial works were even then only completed in the
Summer of 2006.
21. BW has in my view attempted to side
step the primary legislation intended to offer limited security
of tenure to customers (such as me) occupying properly established
residential moorings. In my case they would only positively admit
my status under such legislation when I issued a second Ombudsman
complaint.
22. Lack of consistent consultation with
boaters and other sections of the community means BW at times
make major oversights in their operational business. Recent examples
include:
23. In 2006 less than 20% of BW's funding
bid to Transport for London to improve towpaths was actually applied.
The scheme was initially presented and marketed as being principally
for the benefit of cyclists. It was seemingly only after the initial
phase of works were completed that BW realised they had omitted
to prepare a suitable health and safety audit. They then commissioned
consultants only to discover that the intimate nature of towpaths
means that there were a high number of incidents where cyclists
and other users came into conflict. BW have now recognised the
oversight but they only came to this realisation after the event,
and under pressure of a welter of legitimate complaints, ironically
from, among others, cyclists.
24. In 2005 BW replaced the lock mechanisms
throughout the Kennet and Avon Canal. Despite complaints about
the work from the earliest stage they pressed on with the full
programme of works. The following year having admitted that the
mechanisms they had fitted were unfit for purpose they had to
undertake a second contract to replace the brand new mechanisms
they had fitted the previous year with a second set.
25. In both instances lack of consultation
or involvement with the stakeholders led to wastage and created
a raft of bad feeling with canal users.
26. There are numerous other examples I
could cite. These are usually smaller in their scale and impact
than those described above but my conclusion is that BW's performance
when it come to specifying and executing projects is at best inconsistent.
While in some matters they consult well and work closely with
stakeholders and their representatives, and achieve commendable
outcomes, there remain glaring omissions. This lack of consistency
is unacceptable.
27. People like myself who are passionate
on this subject are also in the main (though not exclusively)
committed stakeholders. Most campaigners and activists put our
energies into the work we do in connection with waterways as volunteers.
In my case in spite of the sorts of difficulties and concerns
described above I remain committed to the inland waterways to
the point of making them my home.
28. Sadly I believe that BW still does not
consistently demonstrate the skills or will to engage fully with
people like myself.
29. There have been notable attempts at
improvements in consultation and involvement in some areas most
dear to boat owners in the last year, especially over management
of the navigation and related facilities, and more improvements
are promised. I reserve judgement as to what extent these initiatives
will lead to better outcomes.
30. But in other areas, particularly when
it comes to commercial activity, I see very limited progress and
little mutual trust. This inevitably tarnishes the more positive
aspects as do all too frequent failures of outcome in individual
projects.
31. There is at times a feeling that boaters
are perceived principally as another revenue stream and that we
have nothing to offer beyond that.
Recent developments in the stewardship work and
commercial activities of British Waterways, including its property
portfolio
32. It is clear that BW are expected by
DEFRA Ministers to be increasingly financially reliant on commercial
activities and of these their property development business is
the single most significant element.
Conflict of interests
33. BW promotes much of their property development
as being regeneration activity and that is not unreasonable.
34. However organisationally BW face a fundamental
dilemma—the board and management team are charged with protecting
a national asset and heritage structure but are simultaneously
charged with in effect privatising elements of this heritage in
order to generate sufficient revenue for running costs.
35. Concerns over failure to consistently
consult adequately with stakeholders in advance about the appropriateness
of individual schemes frequently arise.
36. It seems to me one element of finding
a better way through this dilemma might be to seek a much greater
level of involvement and scrutiny of potentially controversial
decisions by stakeholders than is typically applied at present.
37. I also have concerns that some BW staff,
and particularly the senior management, are far too heavily incentivised
in favour of commercial projects over stewardship considerations.
I believe it would be of benefit and comfort to all concerned
to greatly clarify these relationships.
Actual performance in Property Development
38. Delays and associated costs, in part
as a result of strident objections to individual BW redevelopment
proposals, when stakeholders feel involvement and scrutiny have
been ineffective, mean that BW's returns on individual schemes
may not at times be what it could or should be.
39. The case of Castle Mill Boatyard in
Oxford is perhaps the worst case scenario to date.
— BW appear to have mobilised the whole
of the local community including the local authority against their
proposed redevelopment plans.
— They were strongly criticised by
a planning inspector who reviewed the proposal and by the judge
who evicted protestors who occupied the site for a while.
— The site is currently disused and
has lain empty for many months. BW are incurring major expense
to maintain vacant possession pending any possible sale. Local
campaigners estimate the overall expenditure on this project is
now close to exceeding any proceeds that BW might receive from
any sale.
— The market value of the site has
been greatly reduced by the history of events and the ongoing
hostility to redevelopment from the local community.
— There is a deep and now embedded
mistrust of BW generally in the local community in Oxford and
confidence in BW will probably take many years to rebuild.
40. The negative impact of failing to consult
adequately is therefore financially significant and most sharply
illustrated by this case, albeit in perhaps a worst case scenario.
The case shows how significant the costs can be of injudiciously
pressing ahead without having undertaken effective consultation.
41. I believe other contributors are likely
to offer other examples of this.
Speculative activities versus Financial Risk
42. I believe BW has moved beyond the original
intentions of the powers they were given a decade or so ago, to
behave more commercially. I believe the intention at that time
was that BW should be empowered to realise income from redundant
non-operational assets and also be allowed to engage in medium
to low risk commercial activities. This was not an unreasonable
direction.
43. However I believe BW have reached the
point where most of the family silver on which to base such activities
has been exploited (not always successfully). There is therefore
a fear and increasing evidence that BW are becoming engaged in
much more speculative activities.
44. Although BW try to manage risk in their
most speculative schemes, for instance through subsidiary businesses
and partnerships with the private sector, it also appears that
the speculative costs of entering such arrangements are high.
45. When individual users seek to scrutinise
or influence these activities, especially to get a feel for front
end costs versus longer terms outcomes and potential gains, we
are consistently met with what I can only describe as a wall of
so called commercial confidentiality.
46. The result seems to be that BW's most
risky and speculative schemes are those least subject to direct
scrutiny by stakeholders.
47. The financial risks are much more severe
where the assets concerned were purchased speculatively, as opposed
to being those held historically.
48. A fear is that major errors of judgement
are being concealed or downplayed.
49. There is also a fear among some stakeholders
that BW are currently so financially fragile and that they are
unduly commercially exposed. It might only take one large scheme
to fail and their commercial programme as whole may stall through
lack of cash. Some of BW's public comments about the effect of
cuts to grant in aid seem to support such a fear.
Potential for growth in leisure and freight use
of the waterways network
50. I will simply say that I believe there
is great potential for BW in these respects but I have grave doubts
about BW's ability to deliver on such objectives, for the reasons
discussed herein and others.
Relationships between British Waterways and central
Government departments, Regional Development Agencies and local
authorities
51. Much could be said on this but I will
limit my comments to the context of BW's property and regeneration
activities.
False reliance on the local planning process
52. A trend I have observed is that in the
local planning process, because BW have often not consulted effectively,
local communities and individuals frequently feel obliged raise
objections to redevelopment schemes with the local authority.
53. My impression is that BW are relying
far to heavily on local authority planning processes to do (or
not) the sorts of consultation that they should ideally be undertaking
from the outset.
54. In a number of cases even after permission
for a scheme is not granted at the first attempt, BW still refuse
to fully engage with the relevant parties or the local authority.
Instead BW frequently proceed to planning enquiries.
55. BW also frequently apply sometimes sophisticated
(though sometimes not very -allegations of dirty tricks are far
too frequent), and presumably expensive, PR to the problem.
56. This way of dealing with objectors seems
a highly inefficient and ineffective use of resources when simply
sitting down with the parties and consulting and negotiating effectively
before the initial planning application might have in many cases
improved matters, even if only to clarify and fully assess the
merit of individual objections.
57. This is also a relatively expensive
way to proceed because BW often cause significant resources to
also be expended on the part of local authorities as such case
are pursued through the appeal system.
58. As a consequence relationships with
some local authorities appear strained. This in turn probably
makes some local authorities much more sceptical of future proposals.
59. There is consequently at best a degree
of scepticism in some communities about this aspect of BW's work,
communities, which might otherwise positively influence local
authorities and other agencies to support BW's work. This in turn
feeds a strong general sense of mistrust over this area of BW's
work from "ordinary" users.
CONCLUSION
60.The executive summary I have offered deals
with my conclusions arising out of these comments.
61. I would be happy to offer further evidence
to elaborate or clarify anything contained in this submission
and I confirm that I am content with these views being publicly
available.
Simon Robbins
January 2007
| 
