Memorandum submitted by The Inland Waterways
Association
EVIDENCE TO THE ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL
AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE ON BRITISH WATERWAYS' RESTORATION AND
REGENERATION ACTIVITES BY THE INLAND WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION
BACKGROUND ON
IWA
The Inland Waterways Association (IWA) is a
registered charity formed in 1946 to save the inland waterways,
and to revive them into the widely used and much loved amenity
that they are today. IWA, through its national membership and
local waterway societies, campaigns to convince government, local
authorities and the public of the need for and value of canals
and river navigations. The Association has helped restore hundreds
of miles of waterways for use by boaters, walkers and anglers.
IWA has been active, and is often a significant force, in waterway
restoration projects the length and breadth of the country.
IWA has about 17,500 individual members and
nearly 500 corporate members including community groups, restoration
bodies and waterside businesses. More than 25,000 volunteer hours
are annually donated through our Waterway Recovery Group.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IWA is highly critical of British Waterways'
sudden withdrawal from the Cotswold Canals Partnership. IWA believes
that BW's action has:
— Jeopardised the hard work and financial
commitment of BW's former partners in the Cotswold Canals Partnership,
including the thousands of volunteers giving of their own time
and money; and
— Undermined the confidence of many
other organisations either involved, or anticipating being involved,
with BW in other waterways restoration projects.
IWA argues for much stronger direction from
Government to BW in leading waterway restoration, and commiting
to the long-term development and regeneration of the country's
waterways.
EVIDENCE
1. The Inland Waterways Association is dismayed
by and angry with BW's decision to withdraw without consultation
or warning from the Cotswolds Canals Partnership.
2. Members of the Association have been
involved in the restoration of the Cotswolds Canals since the
1960s, when the Stroudwater Navigation was derelict and in private
ownership. The forerunners of what later became the Cotswold Canals
Trust persuaded the owners that the Navigation should be restored
along with the Thames and Severn Canal.
3. Serious restoration work started in the
1970s, including voluntary contributions from our Waterway Recovery
Group. In 2006, the Heritage Lottery Fund gave approval for an
£11.9 million grant towards the restoration of the Cotswold
Canals. Other funding came from a range of partners including
the South West Regional Development Agency, local authorities,
British Waterways and Cotswolds Canals Trust.
4. The Lottery bid had been put forward
by British Waterways on behalf of the wider Cotswold Canals Partnership
comprising local authorities along the waterway, The Waterways
Trust, British Waterways, The Inland Waterways Association, the
Environment Agency, Cotswold Canals Trust and other regional bodies.
5. British Waterways agreed to provide financial
matching funds of £6 million to the Lottery bid for the restoration
between Brimscombe Port and Stonehouse. To date British Waterways
has spent £1.5 million of this commitment.
6. In 2007, British Waterways announced
it had concerns about its liability for cost overruns from the
original cost estimates. The announcement caused considerable
problems to the project. This was resolved late last year when
Stroud District Council announced it would take responsibility
for works around Brimscombe Port.
7. BW's decision to withdraw on the 4th
February 2008 came as a huge shock to the Partnership. As it is
matchfunding money, the consequent loss to the project as a whole
could be significantly more than the £4.5 million alone and
already concerns have been raised that works due to start in September
may be unable to proceed.
8. In answers to Parliamentary Questions,
the Minister Jonathan Shaw indicated that he knew about BW's decision
to withdraw funding a week before the decision was announced and
said that British Waterways asked for nothing to be made public
so that key partners, funders and staff could be informed beforehand.
Other than the chairman of the Partnership, who was informed on
the evening of the business day prior to the announcement, IWA
is unaware of any of these partners being informed prior to the
day of announcement. This lack of consultation by British Waterways
was ill-judged, ill-mannered and left partners flatfooted and
unable to respond with alternative plans when contacted by the
media.
9. To date, British Waterways has failed
to consult in depth with its partners regarding its decision and
has not communicated its thinking, financial situation or other
reasons for its decision to withdraw.
10. It appears that British Waterways was
unaware of the impact of its decision on its own reputation. IWA
believes that, by its actions, British Waterways has seriously
damaged its reputation which may affect future regeneration and
restoration schemes.
11. The Inland Waterways Association argues
that British Waterways needs to revisit its strategy towards waterway
restoration. Up until two years ago, British Waterways was far
more positive in its attitude towards restoration, in some instances
taking the leading role. The past two years have seen a significant
decline in support at a senior level for waterway restoration.
12. Evidence at present indicates a BW attitude
of "we will join in only if it is profitable for us".
There are a number of projects that British Waterways has frustrated,
obstructed or been unhelpful about, including the Grantham Canal
and Pocklington Canal. IWA believes that British Waterways has
an obligation, as the guardian of the nation's inland waterways,
to promote and instill confidence in waterways restoration. British
Waterways'current over-cautious and retreating stance is shortsighted
and ignores the opportunities to develop for the public good.
13. The Inland Waterways Association believes
that BW should be given a far stronger lead by Government, with
expansion of the system as a key responsibility. Government should
explicitly state that its expectation of BW is actively to support
expansion of the waterways network. Expansion of the inland waterways
should be established as a key Performance Indicator for BW.
14. BW has, without doubt, severe financial
pressures, as detailed by the Committee's Report of last summer.
Since then, BW has faced increased financial pressures from flooding,
notably a major breach which occurred at Gilwern on the Brecon
and Abergavenny Canal. On inspection, BW discovered further major
works needed along the canal resulting in a requirement for unplanned
repairs of £15 million over the next four years. BW has said
the main reason for withdrawing from the Cotswolds Partnership
was to help fund these repairs. IWA argues that the impact of
the floods and the breach constitute a demonstrable need for contingency
funding from Government.
15. In conclusion, The Inland Waterways
Association believes that British Waterways should take positive
steps to restore confidence in its role as an active participant
in and supporter of major waterway restoration projects. In this
respect, Government should consider directing BW accordingly.
Moreover, Government should compensate British Waterways for the
huge costs associated with damage from last summer's floods and
the cost of repairs on the Brecon & Abergavenny Canal.
The Inland Waterways Association
March 2008
| 
