Memorandum from Wynns Group (FT 23)
INTRODUCTION
1. Wynns Ltd are the UKs only independent
transport consultancy specialising in the movement of abnormal
indivisible loads. In 1998 and working on behalf of Powergen,
Wynns engineered the delivery of seven loads in excess of 150
tonnes to Cottam Power Station in Nottinghamshire. The loads were
delivered directly to site via the River Trent.
2. In November 2000 Wynns subsidiary company
Robert Wynn & Sons Ltd was awarded an £8.5 million freight
facilities grant. The grant represented 99% of the total cost
of the design and build of a specialist ro-ro barge and the purchase
and conversion of a former inland tanker barge.
3. The vessels, later named the Terra Marique
and the Inland Navigator, work as a system to maximise the potential
of the inland waterway network for the carriage of the largest
and heaviest abnormal indivisible loads. Specifically, Special
Order & VR1 categories which are granted for road movement
by the Secretary Of State for Transport. Special Order permits
are issued for loads which when transported are either in excess
of 150 tonnes in weight, 6.1 metres in width or 30 metres in length
and VR1 permits which are for loads which when transported are
above 5 metres in width.
4. The Governments "water preferred
policy" was announced on 11 June 2002 by the then Parliamentary
Under Secretary for Transport David Jamieson MP and clearly states
that:
"the Departments VSE Division will henceforth
adopt a policy whereby water transportation is the preferred mode
for the movement of the largest and heaviest abnormal indivisible
loads. Road movements will only be authorised where the Department
has considered the possibility but believes water transportation
is not feasible"
SUMMARY
5. The Committee has indicated that it will
examine how successfully the Department for Transport is fulfilling
its responsibility to facilitate free movement of goods while
limiting harmful impacts, as well examine whether the Department's
responsibilities should be extended, to developing and implementing
an integrated freight plan.
6. We believe that Department for Transport
and its Executive Agencies are not maximising there position if
their role is to facilitate the free movement of goods, while
limiting their impact. We do support the view that the department
should develop a fully integrated and sustainable freight plan.
7. The UK's commercial Inland waterways,
we believe, should have an increasing part to play within a fully
integrated and sustainable transport network. They are a natural
freight carrying conduit linking ports to major centres of population,
such as South Yorkshire, East and West Midlands and London and
the South East.
Is the Department's investment in logistics programmes—including
the Sustainable Distribution Fund—good value for money and
meeting the objectives?
8. The freight facilities grant scheme/Sustainable
Distribution Fund
9. The freight facilities grant scheme was
extended to include inland waterways following the passing of
the 1981 Transport Act. Previously funding had only been available
for transferring freight from road to rail. The first freight
grant, for a waterway project, was awarded some 18 months later
in May 1983 and over the next 22 years (up to April 2005) the
Department for Transport, in all its guises, awarded 60 other
freight facilities grants.
10. In 2002 the Department for Transport
consulted with industry and subsequently revised the grant processes
as well as proposing a separate grant scheme which was for non
capital (operating) costs, the waterborne freight grant. In February
2005 The Department for Transport incorporated the freight facilities
grant scheme, including grants for inland waterways based projects
and the waterborne freight grant within the sustainable distribution
fund. This also includes grant schemes for rail.
11. While our company was the recipient
of the largest freight grant award for an inland waterway project,
as highlighted above, we do not believe the waterborne grant schemes
are a successful as they should be in removing freight from an
already congested road network, and if anything are counter productive
in the struggle to develop inland waterway freight carriage on
the UK commercial waterways.
12. We would highlight the following problems.
13. The grant scheme is not designed to
facilitate long-term modal shift from road to water. Grants are
given for removing specific traffics, for example aggregates,
from the roads. This could result in a situation where operators
moving cargoes cannot use grant aided wharf facilities. ie what
the government is doing is developing a network of privately owned
wharfs that will be abandoned once the specific traffic has ceased.
14. This should be considered in light of
the fact that British Waterways, the countries largest navigation
authority, is selling off many of its wharves for redevelopment.
This action is creating the problem that cargo may be able to
be moved on inland waterways but there are no appropriate places
to load and unload. To use a rail based analogy, a rail line without
any stations.
15. The freight facilities grant unit have
made it be known that they no longer welcome grant applications
for vessel purchase or renovation. We would ask why?
16. One of the major constraints on the
development of inland waterway freight traffic is the availability
and suitability of existing craft. Much of the inland waterway
fleet in the UK is over 30 years old and therefore vessels either
need to be upgraded or new ones built. This is often at a significant
cost.
17. A cost that, in some cases due to the
marginal cost savings between road and water, is likely to tip
the balance away from water back to road.
18. There seems no rational behind the Department
for Transport's decision not to grant aid vessel construction
or refit. It would seem logical that if an applicant proposed
a project that included monies for a new build vessel, whether
or not it was grant aided should be based on the environmental
benefits derived, as was the case until this u-turn was instigated
some year or two ago.
19. Inland waterways freight facilities
grants now have to compete with rail based freight grants. As
previously stated in 2005 rail and water freight facilities grants
were merged and all freight facilities grants would be awarded
from the same fund. We do not know what the impact of this change
has been since it was enacted but this step we believe will have
a detrimental impact on the development of inland waterway freight
carriage.
20. The officials within the Department
for Transport have said that the grant schemes have been put in
place to derive environmental benefits not to support the development
of inland waterway freight carriage. We would ask why this is
not the case as a vibrant waterborne freight sector would in the
medium and long term be a great asset and would deliver significant
economic and environmental benefits which far exceed the monies
within the grant scheme.
21. We would also ask why the government
is actually disadvantaging waterborne freight grants by saying
that rail transport and barge transport derive the same environmental
benefit. We would ask if there is academic study to substantiate
this. We believe that it is unlikely that inland waterway freight
carriage and carriage of goods by rail have the same environmental
impact yet the grant scheme treats them the same.
WATERBORNE FREIGHT
POLICY
22. In the Governments response to the Freight
Study Group report (June 2002), the Department for Transport committed
itself to "Provide a single focal point within Government
for all waterway freight issues" this focal point is based
within the Logistics and Maritime Directorate.
23. A new post was not created as a result
of the Departments undertaking. Rather, extra responsibilities
were put upon those who administered waterborne freight grants.
We understand that this is still the case today. We would therefore
ask who is responsible for waterborne freight policy? Is the Department
for Transport actively seeking to make better use of the UK's
commercial waterways, if not we would ask why not.
24. Funding freight grants and providing
support for the activities of Sea & Water seems to be the
government's commitment to inland waterway freight carriage. It
is understood that there are many officials responsible for policies
associated with the movement of freight on road and rail and these
officials revise policies, provide guidance and ensure that there
is cross governmental consensus on issues that face their sectors.
Who is undertaking this on behalf of inland waterways? The government's
response to the freight study group report welcomed the creation
of the then new post of Head of Freight at British Waterways.
This position no longer exists nor does the central freight marketing
team. Just another example to reaffirm our view that nobody is
responsible for developing waterborne freight policy.
25. We do know that the Highways Agency
is responsible for the implementation of the Department for transports
"water preferred policy". A policy that as detailed
above should be removing the largest and heaviest abnormal loads
from the road network. To date we are not aware of any loads that
have been delivered via the inland waterway as a direct result
of the policy. It is true to say some loads have travelled via
inland waterways but this was due to other factors rather than
the policy.
26. This Committee heavily criticised the
Highways Agencies work regarding this policy in its inquiry entitled
"The Work of the Department for Transport's Agencies-Driver
and Vehicle Operator Group and the Highways Agency", stating
that "Little real effort has been made to divert freight
off the roads and onto the water".
27. We would ask the committee if the same
could be said of the Department for Transport?
Should the Department have more responsibility
for planning and delivering integrated infrastructure which might
promote "free movement of goods"?
28. Planning has a crucial role to play
in the development of inland waterway freight carriage. As highlighted
earlier, we are increasingly seeing the selling off of wharves
for redevelopment. This only succeeds to make water transport
more difficult. The Department for Transport needs to have a role
both in the management of those navigation authorities responsible
for the commercial waterways (a responsibility currently designated
to DEFRA) and planning (a responsibility currently designated
to DCLG).
29. In the last 12 months we have seen planning
applications approved by city councils in Worcester and Nottingham
that will significantly restrict the freight carrying potential
of the River Severn and Trent.
30. This is not solely due to the fact that
the wharves have been sold off, more so that a like for like or
enhanced replacement has not been designated. We agree with those
who say that many of our remaining wharfs in town and city centres
are not fit for purpose and are actually in the wrong place. We
would however wish the Department for Transport would take steps
to ensure that replacement facilities are provided in more suitable
locations.
31. An example of this is Worcester where
the last remaining freight wharf at Diglis Basin is being redeveloped
for housing and leisure. The wharf is situated in the centre of
the city with poor links to the primary trunk road network. The
redevelopment of this must generate significant income to British
Waterways who in this case are not only the landowner and but
also in partnership with the developer.
32. There is not however any firm plans
to provide a replacement facility. The river Severn shadows the
M5 for much of its distance and is crossed by the A38 and the
A4440 (Worcester bypass). We would have hoped that a replacement
facility could be developed by British Waterways close to one
of these trunk roads. To date nothing has been forthcoming despite
we believe assurances given to the Department for Transport water
freight section prior to planning being approved.
33. The Department for Transport need to
take a proactive approach to ensuring that bad planning does not
compromise the inland waterways freight carrying potential. Inland
waterways pass through many district and county boundaries and
therefore a national approach to safeguarding and replacement
is needed.
34. While safeguarding of wharfs is in place
on the Thames we would again seek to have this scheme extended
nationally. Wharf protection should form part of a national integrated
freight plan.
35. A plan is required that sets out the
government's priorities as to how they will develop a national
sustainable and integrated freight-carrying network. A network
that also maximises the potential of short sea, coastal and inland
waterway freight carriage.
36. It is essential that Government take
a joined up approach to the provision of transport infrastructure,
to aid this we would again highlight the need for the Department
for Transport to be made responsible for the commercial waterway
network, as defined in the 1968 Transport Act.
37. This Committee made this recommendation
in its recent Ports inquiry. This point we believe needs be made
to again as only when the commercial waterways are incorporated
in to the strategic transport network will they be given the consideration
and investment they deserve.
October 2007
| 
