Planning approval on a development with the maximum allowable housing density was, as BW and their prospective partner saw it, an essential pre-requisite to securing the best possible financial return on the Jericho site in Oxford. This was not to be achieved in a plan which included the maintenance and service of boats; as far as BW were concerned, this function would have to move elsewhere. Several alternative sites were offered by BW but all were inappropriate and were rejected by Oxford City Council whose Local Plan* under SR13 clearly requires replacement of such facilities “at an equally accessible and suitable location”.

Three times, BW sought planning permission from Oxford City Council for their flawed plan and three times their application was thrown out on the same grounds. Given that the granting of the coveted planning permission on the land now hung upon the single, unresolved boatyard provision, Oxford’s Jericho community imagined that British Waterways would at last fulfil their statutory obligations, and offered full cooperation to assist them in overcoming this final barrier. There were even other development companies that stepped forward with proposals that included solutions to the dilemma.

They were all wrong. Frustrated by Oxford’s rebuff, British Waterways cleared the site on 31st May, 2006. At a cost to taxpayers reputed to be in excess of £220,000, BW then put up a razor wire fence and contracted a security firm to keep away the boaters, both steps designed to give the impression that they had been dealing not with their ‘core customers’, but with troublemakers and illegal squatters.

BW were instructed to remove the razor wire by Oxford Council who also passed the motion that “British Waterways should cease its attempts to evict those members of the boating community who are currently preserving the function of the Jericho Boatyard, and instead focus their time and effort on finding an equally accessible and suitable location for boating support services”.

Despite BW Chief Executive’s assurances to his 2006 AGM and despite the force of argument afforded by a government Planning Inspector’s report upon BW’s third successive failure to get planning permission, on 22nd December 2006 the site was sold off to the highest bidder. 

Had they consulted with Oxford Council and the Jericho community in good faith from the outset, British Waterways would probably have got planning permission and would not have had to accept a much reduced price for a site without planning permission. A higher financial return would have been achieved in less time and with less taxpayer’s money wasted had BW followed their own website’s dictum: 

“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.” 

In his briefing paper to the British Waterways Board in July 2006, the Chief Executive made no mention of the money that BW had lost in failing to secure the Jericho planning permission, preferring instead to claim that BW had achieved a media success by limiting coverage of the heavy-handed eviction of the Jericho boating community to two broadsheets (he omitted to mention that the action was covered by both BBC and ITV television). On BW’s handling of the media, the Chief Executive concluded “Public relations was an integral part of the very careful planning for a complex operation”. Taxpayers, whilst appreciating the unintended irony of his comment, will doubtless feel that the same careful planning did not extend to good public relations with his much vaunted ‘core customers’.

* it is compelling to note that Oxford’s Local Plan, on the basis of which all three of British Waterway’s planning applications were rejected, might have been influenced by BW’s policy document “Waterways and Development Plans” which was produced in 2003 to encourage the integration of the inland waterways of England and Wales into the development plan system. 

On page 53, under the heading of ‘Safeguarding Boat Yards, Slipways and Wharves’ the BW document states “It is important for development plans to seek to retain boatyards (boat building and repair) used in connection with water-based recreation. New residential development in close proximity to existing boatyards can cause operational problems for the boatyard operator and could theoretically contribute to the closure of the boatyard.” 

It goes on: “It is important for development plans to seek to retain or relocate boatyards and slipways used in connection with water-based recreation. Local authorities should firstly, evaluate with British Waterways the availability of, and potential demand for, such facilities within their length of the waterway. Secondly, they need to consider carefully proposals for the redevelopment of such facilities for non-waterway related sport, leisure and recreation activity unless they are clearly surplus to current or anticipated future requirements, or unless alternative facilities are to be provided. Only where the boatyard, slipway or wharf is surplus to requirements or alternative facilities are proposed, should redevelopment occur” 

Fine words on what other development agencies should do, but the document fails to state what should happen when BW is the agent seeking the development.