Memorandum submitted by Grantham Canal
Restoration Society Limited
1. We wish to express our utmost concern
for the future of British Waterways ( BW ) restoration and regeneration
role. The fact that BW have had to withdraw from the Cotswold
Canals Partnership, in order to divert large funds to progress
the urgent first phase of a repair programme for the Monmouthshire
& Brecon Canal expected to cost around £15 million over
four years is significant.
Refer to our Memorandum (BW 78) Ev 367/8 fourth para.)[4].
This withdrawal from BW participation in a major canal partnership
could be the pattern for similar canal partnerships elsewhere
in the areas of BW administration throughout the UK.
2. Most of the canals within BW jurisdiction
were built by independant canal companies during the so called
period of "Canal Mania" between the 1770s and the turn
of the 19th century, and are over two hundred years old. There
are a few exceptions in a very small minority. Many companies
built to their own size specifications, which would later help
to their own downfall. One thing they all had in common was that
they were designed to operate with horses/mules/donkeys towing
the boats suitable for each navigation, ie barges, narrowboats,
tub-boat strings. Consequently each canal had a towing path, in
some rare cases one on each side. Accordingly most canals ran
along contours where possible, but where not practicable, on embankments,
crossing streams and rivers on aqueducts of varying lengths according
to necessity. Other sections wound around the sides of hills,
embanked on the lower sides, cut into them on the upper sides.
Not many lengths or sections were cut into ground completely level
on both sides. Quite a number of canal tunnels were built, some
with towpaths through and some where horses were led over the
tunnelled hills whilst the boats were "legged" through.
Maintenance was carried out by all the canal companies, but costs
were comparatively low. Horse drawn boats left little disturbance
or wash as they travelled along at 2 or 3 mph at best. Large tonnage
capacity was far more important than speed, and once a supply
chain of boats was established, deliveries to depots and wharves
became continuous and reliable.
3. The preceding paragraph sets the scene
which eventually became BW's responsibility and problem. Whilst
the canal companies were trading successfully, funds were available
for ongoing maintenance. With the coming of the railways from
around the 1840s, canals started loosing trade, and many canal
companies were purchased and absorbed by railway companies. Some
canal beds were converted to railway tracks, but many canals soldiered
on, slowly loosing more trade as their railway owners (with the
exception of one or two) looking to run the canals down to cut
out competion. Maintenance was poor and largely carried out when
crisis demanded, rather than on a prevention basis.
More and more repairs were required as many
of the barges and narrowboats were converted to, and built first
with steam engines propelled with shaft and screw and later with
diesel engines. The canals had not been built to withstand the
wear and undercutting of banks by propwash, and maintenance standards
were still declining. As trade continued to decline, more and
more canals became silted and weedy, and many were abandoned by
Act of Parliament. After World War II, along with road and rail,
the canals were nationalised, and the waterways became the Cinderella
of the Transport network. The long winter of 1963 was the death
knell of most canal workboat trading, and BW inherited a very
run down system when it was formed to become the owners and custodian
of a large part of the UK's canal and river navigations. Under
the 1968 Transport Act, navigations were re-classified under three
headings. Commercial (those still carrying on commercial trading
and to be maintained and dredged to appropriate standard), "Cruiseway"
(those still navigable but with little commercial carrying, and
being used by growing numbers of pleasure craft and to be maintained
to a necessary standard, but not dredged to more than 3' 6",),
and all waterways classified disused or abandoned defined as "Remainder"
and only to be maintained as far as health and safety required,
and if need be, disposed of in the way most deemed as economical.
4. For many years, BW struggled on with
inadequate funding, whilst much of navigation furniture such as
locks, gates, bridges and tunnels received minimum maintenance.
Much of the system's buildings and works had to perform far beyond
their design build. But, as pressure built up from volunteer organisations
such as Inland Waterways Association, and local canal societies
actively engaging in restoration, often supported in their aims
by local authorities and BW participating with them in partnerships,
a waterways revival gathered momentum. Major canal restorations
succeeded, with canals such as the Kennet and Avon being completely
re-opened to through navigation. Other regeneration and restoration
projects have also been completed, and many more are working to
that end, recovering more and more mileage.
5. Much has been achieved by the present
government, allowing BW extra funding to catch up on many decades
of maintenance neglect, and in formulating its policy of "Waterways
For Tomorrow". But, suddenly, through no fault of BW, funding
has been cut to a degree that BW now finds it necessary to "divert"
funds to major repairs. This, quite clearly, has to be to the
deprivation of restoration and regeneration. There will be other
working navigations that will require heavy injections of funds
to carry out repairs to breaches, embankments and land slippage.
BW will never be able to keep up with its repair bills by "developing"
its own assets, or even "selling the family silver".
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6. Our canals and the water based leisure,
national/international tourism industry, with all its benefits
of employment, boat building with all the growing revenue must
be supported by proper funding and investment. The whole waterway
network is truly a National Heritage site. Its regenerational
capacity is enormous. It needs abandoned and disused waterways
to be opened up to relieve the pressure points, and to further
enlarge that capacity. What must not happen is that the many millions
of pounds worth of restoration, carried out by the voluntary sector,
to be wasted. Just as a small example, volunteers have carried
out restoration work, valued by BW at £7½ million, on
the Grantham Canal. Yet, because it is a remainder waterway, BW's
budget does not extend to being able to maintain the restoration
work completed. This includes 5 locks and 3 swing bridges, fully
restored, and blockages to the navigation being removed. Some
of our restored navigations still are classified as "remainder".
There must be a better method of upgrading to "Cruiseway"
than the present parliamentary process permits. In concluding,
we have to say to government, please don't wreck the good work
achieved during your "Waterways For Tomorrow" policy,
for the sake of what in terms of our national GDP is "penny
pinching".
Restored "Remainder" canals still
requiring upgrading to "Cruiseway" status are :- Remainder
lengths of the Kennet & Avon Canal and of the Forth &
Clyde and Union Canals. All the more recent restorations have
not (yet) resulted in reclassification. BW state they have "in
hand", applications for all of the previously mentioned canals
for re-classification to "Cruiseway". This does require
a Ministerial Order, and this will usually depend on BW demonstrating
the waterway is essentially sustainable and the Order will not
result in additional grant being required.
The last re-classification from "Remainder"
to "Cruiseway" was of the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal
in the late 1990's. Before then a batch were re-classified under
the BW Act 1983, including most of the Monmouthshire & Brecon
Canal. BW add "that there are a whole variety of Remainder
Waterways, some of which have always been navigable (just), some
which were in poor condition (albeit not closed) but which have
since been improved, some of which were closed due to specific
blockages that have since been cleared, and some which were wholly
derelict and have since been subject to major reconstructions
for restoration (and of course some which remain derelict and
closed to navigation)."
In reality each Remainder Waterway has (or had)
different stretches of any of the above descriptions.
GCRS Ltd. would like to express its thanks to
BW's Legal Department for its assistance in providing accurate
information with regard to "Remainder Waterways", and
express concern that BW are bound by re-classification to "Cruiseway"
not resulting in additional grant being required. GCRS Ltd. believe
this policy short-sighted by the government expecting BW to take
on further redevelopment, restoration and regeneration whilst
cutting funding and restricting BW's ability to maintain, properly,
its increasing responsibility of maintaining and preventing wear
and tear to the canal and river network within its jurisdiction.
Christopher Tizzard
Vice President and Founder Member
Grantham Canal Restoration Society Limited
March 2008
4 House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee, British Waterways, Seventh Report of Session
2006-07, Volume II. Back
|
