Annex H
Extract from Meeting with British Waterways
on Tuesday 14 November 2006 to Explore Policy Co-operation
Present: Robin Evans, Nigel Johnson, Patrick
Fraher, Sabine Mosner, Jayne Redrup, Richard Bradley, and Pam
Griffin.
RE wanted to sound out Defra's appetite for
taking forward BW's proposals to achieve greater self-sufficiency
and to identify those which were worthy of further investigation.
WIDER POWERS
NJ said that the Legislative and Regulatory
Reform Bill was likely to receive Royal Assent in January 2007
and would provide an opportunity to secure the additional development
powers BW wished to obtain. The Bill provided the powers to amend
primary legislation by the use of a regulatory reform order (RRO)
which would amend BW's legislation. It might also be possible
to use such an order to amend and update waterways legislation
applying to other navigation authorities to allow them to manage
and operate their waterways more effectively.
RE wanted BW to develop a more balanced property
portfolio with a wider geographical spread so that it could grasp
more commercial opportunities and exploit its regeneration expertise.
SM agreed that the policy objective tied in with the recommendations
of the end to end review. RB said that the proposed RRO would
need to be explored with Cabinet Office in view of their overall
responsibility for RROs and particularly since the Department's
experience with IWAAC suggested that Parliamentary Counsel might
see the proposal as changing the nature of BW rather than as lifting
a burden. The first stage would be to complete a proforma setting
out the proposals in detail.
Agreed that NJ would prepare first statement
of case and would approach Cabinet Office after consulting Defra.
Action: RB to provide NJ with a contact in
the Cabinet Office and a copy of the IWAAC proforma.
NJ to prepare background case for RRO
BORROWING
BW wished to increase their borrowing limit
of £35 million. This would require primary legislation. The
2008 Finance Bill offered a possible opportunity.
RE said that there were other means of raising
money, citing the case of the BBC who had issued property bonds.
He wished to understand how this had been achieved.
Action: NJ to explore avenues for increasing
borrowing limit and to update Defra in due course
PF to respond on BBC point
ACCESS TO
OTHER FUNDING
STREAMS
RE said that it would be helpful to know what
other funding streams within Defra might be available to BW, ie
grants for hedgerows. SM said she could track funding generally
within Defra, but did not have detailed information readily to
hand. She suggested that BW engage with Natural England—if
this proved unsuccessful, she was happy to facilitate.
Action: RE to pursue proposal with Helen
Phillips
PLANNING GAIN
SUPPLEMENT
RE said that BW should receive PGS funding by
virtue of the fact that waterside developments provided a 20%
uplift in prices for developers. Given the fact that it was involved
in over £10 billion of regeneration, PGS could make a significant
contribution to BW's income and thus reduce its burden on government.
SM said that this was a different tack, as following on from the
meeting between BW and representatives from DCLG and Treasury
in September, the Department had adopted a defensive approach
focusing on the potential losses that BW might suffer from PGS
through having to pay the supplement as developer and through
the potential weakening of S106 agreements. DCLG had responsibility
for the policy on the distribution of PGS to local authorities
and would be able to advise BW on this aspect and clarify the
future position on S106 agreements.
Action: RE to draw up case for BW's eligibility
for PGS from local authorities and provide a brief for Defra
INTERACTION WITH
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
RE said that it would be helpful in BW's negotiations
with local authorities on proposed developments such as a marina,
if it had Defra's backing in the form of a letter setting out
national policy on the waterways.
SM said that Government had recently issued
a White Paper setting out its proposals on the relationship/future
interaction between central and local government. This set a framework
for engagement, with government maintaining a strategic role.
Government Departments set the broad framework, eg planning guidance,
but could not be seen to influence planning decisions as this
would conflict with Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role.
It was a decision for the local authority to decide when and if
it could provide funding to BW towards the maintenance of a local
canal/towpath.
SURPLUS LAND
RE said that it would be advantageous to both
BW and government if it could receive notification of government
land with a waterside frontage. This need not be solely for disposal,
but also where it was underused and capable of development. SM
pointed to central register and the strict Treasury guidelines
governing the sale and disposal of surplus government land and
assets. Departments provide annual returns to Treasury of their
assets [BW contributed to this return] and these returns fed into
the CSR process. This was an additional source of intelligence
on what was available. SM suggested that BW contact David Edwards
or David Shevill on the best ways to sound out what surplus land
was available—one approach might be for BW to contact the
Estates Liaison Officers of individual Departments.
Action: BW to contact DCLG on best way forward
| 
