|
There are many who find British Waterway’s management of our waterway network in large part arrogant and incompetent. In creating this website, British Waterways Action Forum seeks to draw together the strands of criticism expressed by many individuals and organizations throughout the UK.
Here is just a small selection of the comments:
The condition of the River Weaver, which links the industrial Mid-Cheshire area with the Manchester Ship Canal (ultimately the River Mersey and the Irish Sea) became the subject of the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs (2000-1). Evidence submitted referred to the neglected state of the River, leading to the loss of traffic. The evidence was taken from a number of interested parties including two shipowners, the River Pilot and the transport manager of one of the Mid-Cheshire areas chemical industries. Concern expressed by these stakeholders was that British Waterways was not fulfilling its obligation to dredge the river. The River Pilot was particularly concerned by the risk of doing serious damage to the St. Kearan due to constant groundings on the loaded outward voyage. Although these allegations were refuted by British Waterways, the evidence does suggest that leisure and environmental targets are taking precedence over commercial activity.
From a memorandum by Dr Merv Rowlinson, London Guildhall University, to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions (See also article on River Weaver salt transport under ‘Two-faced on Transport’)
Since the James Committee proposals were announced, the BWB has made statements about the impact of our policies which are a little misleading. For example, the Chief Executive of BWB was quoted in the Guardian article as saying that the organisation had a £150 million maintenance backlog and that “any cuts would put visitors at risk.” This is strangely at odds with his Chairman’s 2004 Report which stated that the safety-related maintenance backlog had been eliminated eight months ahead of schedule after expenditure of £93.8 million over seven years. In fact, the £150 million referred to by the chief executive relates to what the Board classifies as “statutory arrears.” Even this is not so clear a classification might appear, since BWB now overlays the standards for economy laid down in the Transport Act 1968 with a more subjective interpretation of a 1999 Framework Document.
From the website of Bob Spink, MP, Conservative Party
The Committee received evidence criticising British Waterways' involvement in two regeneration projects in Yorkshire, at Sowerby Bridge and Wakefield (details can be found in IW44, IW73). In summary, British Waterways was criticised for: an overly commercial approach to heritage-led projects where the benefits are more than simply monetary; a disregard for accountability and the need to consult; and a failure to work properly in partnership.
From Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, January 2001
British Waterways framework document states in paragraph 1.1 that it aims to “facilitate waterway transport, including freight”. Its plan for 2000-2004 stated that it aimed to “work with the government….to find ways to sustain and increase freight”.
These aims are not very forceful and British Waterways would probably achieve more by working with operators and potential customers. British Waterways’ aim to double freight is feasible but will require a more positive and proactive approach than has hitherto been apparent. Too often, when faced with potential freight, British Waterways’ attitude seems to be to emphasise the problems, with the result that potential freight is discouraged.
www.waterways.org.uk
From a submission to DEFRA by Neil Edwards, Chief Executive of the Inland Waterways Association in 2004
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently under-taking a statutory review of BW. One submission to government seen by The Observer said: 'BW has set its own targets and standards for maintaining the waterways and is policing these itself. In our experience of commercial operation on the waterways, we have found that these standards are not adequate to maintain navigation. The standards are little more than a fiction designed to cover up disrepair and deflect demands from operators for adequate navigation.
From an article by Nick Mathiason in the Observer (Business Section) in December 2004
It was given planning permission by Hackney Council in August, however Residents of Debdale Court, whose block will be dwarfed by the new building and whose views of the canal will disappear, have told Hackney Independent that the first they were aware of the proposed development was the receipt of a leaflet late in 2005, after planning permission was awarded. This makes a mockery of British Waterways commitment to consultation. Their website gushes: "Our canals and rivers pass through local communities across the length and breadth of the country. Waterway development is often closely linked to community aspirations and social issues at the local level. It is essential that the views of local communities are fully represented and effectively listened to. We are committed to getting the processes of dialogue and accountability absolutely right." Right.
From an article in the Hackney Independent in March 2006
The boaters are resisting, and if you happen to live nearby, I urge you to travel there and help them. To me this eviction represents the steady purge of "all things counter, original, spare, strange" that is taking place throughout the rich world. Gerard Manley Hopkins, who wrote those words, loved this part of Oxford. The descendants of the Binsey Poplars - the subject of his best poem - grow on the banks of the Thames just across the meadow from the boatyard. Perhaps the only reason they are still there is that British Waterways doesn't manage the rivers. On the canals, everything worth writing about is being wiped out.
From an article by George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper in May 2006
I don't know who was responsible for looking after the Brenta canal. But the body charged with the care of the real life canal so close to the painted one is British Waterways. And if they have their way, scenes such as the one any stroller along the towpath can see every day in Oxford will soon vanish entirely. The Castle Mill Boatyard and all its useful work will be wiped out and "developed" into a cluster of identikit houses and flats that look exactly the same as every other development in the land; a valuable open space and view will vanish from the city; and British Waterways will count its cash and go on to wipe out another boatyard somewhere else.
From an article by Philip Pullman in the Guardian Newspaper in May 2006
The Competition Commission’s investigations into British Waterways faulted the company on its corporate planning, inability to cost projects, board membership and even recording of decisions. It added the canals monopoly was poor at contracting out services. It could be much better at planning applications and was weak at controlling its staff costs too. In other words, British Waterways is a typically flawed public agency that often tries to emulate commercial competence but falls far short of its own ambitions.
From an article on the website of the Institute of Economic Affairs by John Blundell, the Director-General in May 2006
|
