Memorandum submitted by the Lancaster
Canal Restoration Partnership
1.1 I refer to your email dated 22nd February
2008 inviting interested parties to submit a brief memorandum
setting out their views on the above matter, which has been forwarded
to me.
1.2 I am Chairman of the Lancaster Canal
Restoration Partnership, which aims to restore the Lancaster Canal
from its present terminus at Tewitfield, North of Carnforth, Lancashire—to
Kendal, Cumbria, some 14.5 miles. Our project has been in existence
for many years and is now at the planning and consultation stage
for Phase 1 of three stages. The partners are South Lakeland District
Council, Kendal Town Council, Cumbria County Council, Lancashire
County Council, Lancaster City Council, Inland Waterways Association,
Lancaster Canal Trust, The Waterways Trust—and, as lead
partner, British Waterways.
1.3 For many years, British Waterways has
given staff time, funding, and considerable expertise to this
project, which has been and continues to be invaluable.
1.4 I have noted with great concern and
dismay the situation with British Waterways and the Cotswold Canals
project, and their withdrawal of funding to a well advanced restoration
scheme, thus putting it in jeopardy.
1.5 British Waterways' contribution to complex
restoration projects is irreplaceable. The chief concern of such
withdrawal to bodies like ours is that British Waterways, having
led such projects over some years, will now due to their own constraints,
have to pull out of other schemes, of which ours might be one.
Given the large amounts of inward investment generated by such
schemes—ours will be over £100 million—withdrawal
by any of the partners, but especially British Waterways with
its unique contribution, would be catastrophic. Thus, many restoration
schemes all over the country are now at risk due to British Waterways'
move over the Cotswold Canals project.
1.6 British Waterways have stated that the
reason for the withdrawal is that they require the funds to deal
with the breach on the Brecon and Abergavenny Canal. I consider
that this unforeseen breach is something which ought properly
to be funded from Central Government, and that BW should make
a much stronger case for such funding such breach repair, which
if successful would then allow their funding for the Cotswold
Canal project to be reinstated.
1.7 I trust that this unfortunate withdrawal
and the adverse publicity caused will ensure that something similar
does not happen to other restoration schemes over the country—but
especially of course, I hope that our scheme is never affected
in such a way.
1.8 I would be grateful if you would acknowledge
receipt of this email, and ensure that these views are taken into
account by the Select Committee at its one-off evidence session.
C. H. Bagot, Chairman
Lancaster Canal Restoration Partnership
February 2008
|
