Memorandum submitted by the Associate
Parliamentary Waterways Group
BW's regeneration and restoration role, with particular
reference to BW's decision to withdraw from the Cotswold Canal
Partnership.
Please refer to the adjournment debate of 11
December 2007 (appendix 1) and to our submission to the previous
EFRA select committee (appendix 2). These cover many of the concerns
about possible changes to BW's regeneration and restoration role,
fears which are realised in the withdrawal from the Cotswold Canal
Partnership. If this prestigious, flagship project in which so
much resource has been invested can be abandoned at short notice,
what hope is there for other projects?
Both what was done and how it was done have
attracted much criticism. If the financial constraints are so
great as to make walking away from this project a good decision,
then the temptation for asset disposal—despite the unfavourable
current market, must be very great.
There are three main concerns:-
The damage to the reputation of BW
There is a risk BW will not be trusted in existing
and future partnership projects to the extent they were. They
will have less value as a partner in addition to their reduced
ability to absorb the financial risk of underwriting projects.
This is likely to result in fewer projects being started at all
and others stalling or being abandoned.
BW's strategy on property development
Considerable sums were invested in Brimscombe
Port, presumably sacrificed without any return. The property market
has slowed considerably. Are there other investments that will
be abandoned? What is the impact on budgeted returns for both
rental and disposal? And what is the knock on effect on the deficit
from these changes? All the anxieties voiced in appendices 1 &
2 about the inability to tackle maintenance arrears, respond to
major disasters such as breaches and flooding.
Protection of the property portfolio as a public
asset was covered in our submission to the previous committee.
Ensuring BW does feel not forced into making disposals that the
nation would live to regret and that could compromise effective
future management has become urgent.
Social inclusion
It is difficult to interpret the canals fully
without canals being used by boats and all users, including waterside
property developers, enjoy seeing boats. Boating also of course
delivers much of the regeneration benefit through tourism of the
boat users themselves and people wishing to watch the boats, especially
at the many notable engineering structures. Boaters are all year
round users of waterside businesses.
If the only available income stream where prices
can be hiked at short notice annually is boaters, then owning
or hiring a boat becomes a luxury only open to very few. If boat
use is perceived as very expensive the customers attracted will
expect the highest standards of provision and maintenance just
at the time basic standards are becoming harder to maintain. Boating
should be an attainable aspiration for those on average income
and a life long relationship with canal users possible and nurtured.
The moorings tendering pilot has attracted much
criticism as being perceived as an attempt to raise prices unreasonably
and for being an opaque process that is complex and risky to participate
in.
Appendix 1
Adjournment debate 11th December 2007
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071211/halltext/71211h0001.htm£07121143000001
Appendix 2
Extracts from submission to EFRA Committee
(Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
Seventh Report of Session 2006-07, British Waterways, HC 345-II,
Ev 186)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvfru/345/345ii.pdf
Associate Parliamentary Waterways Group
March 2008
| 
