KEY ISSUES

 I have decided to limit myself to four key issues.

1.    Long Term Stability

2.    BW’s relationship with independent service providers

3.    Loss of wharves

4.    Should the custodians of our waterway heritage also be property developers?

STABILITY FOR THE FUTURE – LONG TERM PLANNING 

·        I would congratulate BW, as over the last six years they have progressed wisely in a number of areas.   They have recognised, identified and attacked the backlog of maintenance.   This encouraged new investment. 

·        However, in the last year the cut backs, office moves, closures and loss of key staff has eroded the confidence engendered during the previous years. This is both in potential investors and in the remaining staff.   The work force both administrative and on the bank appear to have lost both morale and motivation where there is reduced presence and effectiveness.    

·        Investors cannot operate on a one-year budget. There needs to be a long-term view.   Stop/go government policies cannot give investors the security they need, to risk both private (independent service providers) and public investment (local authority and community partnerships). 

·        The way forward must certainly be, that the end beneficiary, the community, pays.  Without the confidence engendered by a long-term plan it is not possible to put together partnerships between commerce and local authorities, which will make a difference to the future of our waterways.

INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS ON OUR CANALS

·        Unlike most sporting activities where the pitches, sports centres etc are built and run by local authorities and clubs, the facilities to enable recreational use of the canals and rivers have been developed since 1968 by private investment of freeholders or leaseholders.

·        Those firms were encouraged in the early days to start or develop their businesses through low or nil rents and easy access to hire boat licences. This almost replicates the encouragement given, through statutory rights, by the original canal shareholders (in the Enabling Acts) to the freeholders to ensure they used the waterways.   Only with such use were they economically viable.  The same is true today.  

·        The owners are now "locked in" to their businesses. It is often their pension.  They cannot easily move their businesses away from the waterway or to another waterway. Many businesses are in rural or urban areas, which only have restricted alternative employment.

·        BW controls the "track" and also affects their business as landlord in some way or another through agreements over premises, moorings or licences.   Some of these are in contravention of the rights afforded freeholders in original enabling acts, which are still extant.

·        As BW is now developing its own "business" interests across most aspects of the provision of services for waterway customers  - the landlord is competing directly with the tenant.   BW control most of the on line moorings and now also a lot of the Marina moorings.  Their pricing policies have a direct bearing on the trade of the small and medium businesses.   As BW does not pay themselves rent, there is not a level playing field competing for business.

·        Section 3.21 of Waterways for Tomorrow looks for "improving quality in infrastructure". Section 4.3 states "We want British Waterways to take full advantage of the skills, expertise, innovation, and funding opportunities offered by the private sector"

·       Recent communication with canal side businesses has deteriorated, Investors (independent service providers) in the waterways need to be encouraged and made to feel a valued part of the infrastructure.

·       How can this be achieved? 

·       Senior members of BW’s staff need to be available for meaningful dialogue and cooperation with providers.  For this dialogue to be meaningful the officers must be empowered to make decisions at these meetings. 

·        Given the right relationship with BW, small and medium businesses can provide a great deal of this investment in urban and rural areas as they did from 1968 onwards.  BW could not then, and cannot now achieve this on its own.

LOSS OF WHARVES FOR SUSTAINABLE USE. 

·        Wharves are the gateways to our two thousand miles of waterways.   Our waterways were built for trade and navigation.   Trade today comprises both carrying in the traditional sense of non-time sensitive loads of goods, and just as important the new trade of leisure and tourism. 

·        Why are wharves used for leisure disappearing?

The independent service providers who run the small boatyards in the south east are all reaching their sixties and want to retire – their wharves are worth far more as development land for housing and supermarkets than to retain them as boatyards. 

·        Why has this happened?

The changing economic structure,

The negative attitude of planners needs to be addressed urgently.

·        Regeneration activities
All too often exclude the traditional transport and leisure boating role of waterways in favour of high income generating activities. 

·        Restoration/regeneration is a fundamental obligation of Government Policy and in BW’s new framework has become a ‘nice to do if resources are left over’.   This is a retrograde step, which is progressively alienating much needed supporters and funders in the Voluntary, Public and Private sectors.

·        There is growing pressure to safeguard

Leisure boating wharves/moorings servicing facilities - slips, boat yards, refuelling, water, waste etc and cargo handling facilities. 

·        The track itself must be safeguarded against: - encroachment: - reductions in air draught (new bridges), Channel width (pontoons, business barges),

These all interfere with rights of navigation and BW has not always taken the lead to counter, indeed has in some been responsible for, such encroachment. 

·        Why should we be vigilant? The arguments are practical usage, heritage implications, & safeguarding of waterways as sustainable transport arteries.

·        Safeguarding in practice

1994 London Rivers Assn called on Sec of State to safeguard waterside sites for river related economic activity and transport – It was seen as critical policy gap. 

·        There was a positive response from government in Feb.1997

John Gummer Direction - 32 Thames wharves listed as safeguarded.   I am led to believe that this legislation could equally be applied to canals. 

·        The Dunwoody House of Commons. Report on Inland Waterways (March 2001) - identified loss of wharves as a critical constraint on development of water transport. The idea that local development plans should recognise wharves as 'strategic assets' and protect them against development for alternative uses.   A proposal was made that developers should provide alternative facilities where existing wharves were lost.

·        It was felt that DEFRA Planning Policy Guidelines should be strengthened. 

·        The Freight Study Group was established and reported in June 2002.

It recommended

a.               that there must be a halt in the loss of valuable wharfage 

b.               that there must be provision of adequate lay-by facilities, moorings, sanitation and water points 

c.                that there must be stronger protection for wharves with freight and leisure potential  

·        BW should ensure these recommendations are acted upon soon, as there will be too few boatyards to service the facility in the southeast where land values are high.   BW should itself adhere to the good practice planning guide “Planning for Freight on Inland Waterways” (April 2004) where emphasis on safeguarding is as applicable to the leisure uses of waterways as it is for freight.   

·        This is so important; every wharf that is lost is lost forever once an inappropriate development is in place.

SHOULD THE CUSTODIANS OF OUR WATERWAY HERITAGE ALSO BE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS? 

·       BW’s actions in recent times have led to closure of wharves and boat servicing facilities, an integral part of our canals and vital for a sustainable future for inland waterway navigation.  BW has not been prepared to oppose inappropriate developments, indeed have often supported them.  

·       It is doubtful that BW’s core role, as custodian of our waterways heritage is compatible with their activities as property developers. 

·        I speak with the experience of running a canal hire fleet for 27 years.   Chair of a canal partnership whilst a local councillor and Mayor, bringing together diverse members of the community, business and the local authority with British Waterways.   A previous member of IWAAC, and a public relations consultant, specialising in the canals.

Lindy Foster Weinreb – Castle Wharf Promotions
The Warehouse, Castle Wharf, Ravens Lane,Berkhamsted HP4 2DZ

T 01442 385581 F 01442 385582 M 07990 500 450